Tumour budding as a prognostic biomarker in biopsies and resections of neoadjuvant‐treated rectal adenocarcinoma

• Published in: Histopathology 2024-08, Vol.85 (2), p.224-243
• Main Authors: Aherne, Susan, Donnelly, Mark, Ryan, Éanna J, Davey, Matthew G, Creavin, Ben, McGrath, Erinn, McCarthy, Aoife, Geraghty, Robert, Gibbons, David, Nagtegaal, Iris, Lugli, Alessandro, Kirsch, Richard, Martin, Sean T, Winter, Desmond C, Sheahan, Kieran, Hanly, Ann, Kennelly, Rory, Fennelly, David, Armstrong, J, McVey, G, Dermott, Ray Mc, Doherty, G, Dawson, H, Nagtegaal, I, Zlobec, I
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adenocarcinoma; Biopsy; Cancer therapies; Colorectal cancer; Cytokeratin; Disease management; Lymph nodes; Metastases; neoadjuvant therapies; personalised medicine; rectal cancer; Rectum; surgical pathology; Survival; Tumors; tumour budding
• ISSN: 0309-0167; 1365-2559; 1365-2559
• DOI: 10.1111/his.15192

Background Tumour budding (TB) is a marker of tumour aggressiveness which, when measured in rectal cancer resection specimens, predicts worse outcomes and response to neoadjuvant therapy. We investigated the utility of TB assessment in the setting of neoadjuvant treatment. Methods and results A single‐centre, retrospective cohort study was conducted. TB was assessed using the hot‐spot International Tumour Budding Consortium (ITBCC) method and classified by the revised ITBCC criteria. Haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and AE1/AE3 cytokeratin (CK) stains for ITB (intratumoural budding) in biopsies with PTB (peritumoural budding) and ITB (intratumoural budding) in resection specimens were compared. Logistic regression assessed budding as predictors of lymph node metastasis (LNM). Cox regression and Kaplan–Meier analyses investigated their utility as a predictor of disease‐free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival. A total of 146 patients were included; 91 were male (62.3%). Thirty‐seven cases (25.3%) had ITB on H&E and 79 (54.1%) had ITB on CK assessment of biopsy tissue. In univariable analysis, H&E ITB [odds (OR) = 2.709, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.261–5.822, P = 0.011] and CK ITB (OR = 2.165, 95% CI = 1.076–4.357, P = 0.030) predicted LNM. Biopsy‐assessed H&E ITB (OR = 2.749, 95% CI = 1.258–6.528, P = 0.022) was an independent predictor of LNM. In Kaplan–Meier analysis, ITB identified on biopsy was associated with worse OS (H&E, P = 0.003, CK: P = 0.009) and DFS (H&E, P = 0.012; CK, P = 0.045). In resection specimens, CK PTB was associated with worse OS (P = 0.047), and both CK PTB and ITB with worse DFS (PTB, P = 0.014; ITB: P = 0.019). In multivariable analysis H&E ITB predicted OS (HR = 2.930, 95% CI = 1.261–6.809) and DFS (HR = 2.072, 95% CI = 1.031–4.164). CK PTB grading on resection also independently predicted OS (HR = 3.417, 95% CI = 1.45–8.053, P = 0.005). Conclusion Assessment of TB using H&E and CK may be feasible in rectal cancer biopsy and post‐neoadjuvant therapy‐treated resection specimens and is associated with LNM and worse survival outcomes. Future management strategies for rectal cancer might be tailored to incorporate these findings. Assessment of tumour budding using haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and cytokeratin (CK) staining is feasible in rectal cancer biopsy and post‐neoadjuvant therapy‐treated resection specimens, and is associated with LNM and worse survival outcomes. Future management strategies for rectal cancer might be tailored to