Abstract
Objectives
Japanese guidelines include high‐grade (poorly differentiated) tumors as a risk factor for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). However, whether the grading is based on the least or most predominant component when the lesion consists of two or more levels of differentiation varies among institutions. This study aimed to investigate which method is optimal for assessing the risk of LNM in T1 CRC.
Methods
We retrospectively evaluated 971 consecutive patients with T1 CRC who underwent initial or additional surgical resection from 2001 to 2021 at our institution. Tumor grading was divided into low‐grade (well‐ to moderately differentiated) and high‐grade based on the least or predominant differentiation analyses. We investigated the correlations between LNM and these two grading analyses.
Results
LNM was present in 9.8% of patients. High‐grade tumors, as determined by least differentiation analysis, accounted for 17.0%, compared to 0.8% identified by predominant differentiation analysis. A significant association with LNM was noted for the least differentiation method (p < 0.05), while no such association was found for predominant differentiation (p = 0.18). In multivariate logistic regression, grading based on least differentiation was an independent predictor of LNM (p = 0.04, odds ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.00–2.83). Sensitivity and specificity for detecting LNM were 27.4% and 84.1% for least differentiation, and 2.1% and 99.3% for predominant differentiation, respectively.
Conclusions
Tumor grading via least differentiation analysis proved to be a more reliable measure for assessing LNM risk in T1 CRC compared to grading by predominant differentiation.
Keywords: colorectal neoplasms, endoscopic mucosal resection, lymph nodes, neoplasm grading, risk factor
INTRODUCTION
The number of patients with submucosal invasive (T1) colorectal cancer (CRC) is expected to increase with the implementation of screening programs and the progress of endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic intermuscular dissection and endoscopic full‐thickness resection. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Lymph node metastasis (LNM) occurs in approximately 10% of T1 CRC cases, 5 , 6 so it is important to assess the need for additional surgical resection with lymph node dissection after the endoscopic resection of T1 CRCs based on the risk of LNM. Current Japanese guidelines include positive lymphovascular invasion, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (Por)/mucinous carcinoma (Muc)/signet‐ring cell carcinoma (Sig), depth of invasion ≥ 1000 μm, and tumor budding grade 2 or 3 as established risk factors for LNM. 7 If one or more of these risk factors are present, the patient is deemed ‘high‐risk’ for LNM and surgical resection is recommended. On the other hand, the safety of the ‘low‐risk’ lesions without any risk factors has been validated by previous studies. 8 , 9 , 10
However, some issues with these guidelines need to be overcome to achieve more standardized criteria. 11 One of these is how to assess tumor differentiation grade when the lesion consists of two or more levels of histological differentiation because the classification of tumor grade differs between guidelines. 12 Tumor grading is classified by the least differentiation according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification, and by the predominant differentiation using Japanese guidelines (Figure 1). 13 , 14 Nevertheless, even within Japan, the method of classifying tumor grade varies by institution. 8 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 Two recent expansive Japanese multicenter studies encompassing over 4000 T1 CRC cases diverged in their methodologies—one utilizing predominant differentiation analysis, the other least differentiation analysis (Table 1). In other words, the decision to perform additional surgical resection following endoscopic resection depends on whether the analysis is based on the least or most predominant differentiation.
FIGURE 1.
Two patterns of tumor grade classification with two or more histological differentiation components in T1 colorectal cancer.
well, well‐differentiated adenocarcinoma; por, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; muc, mucinous carcinoma; SM, submucosal layer.
TABLE 1.
Published studies reporting variables used to assess tumor grade in Japanese institutions (the least or predominant differentiation analyses).
|
Author (year) |
Design | Location | Least or predominant | N, total |
Rate of high‐grade N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kajiwara 28 (2023) | Multicenter‐retrospective | Japan | Predominant | 4673 | 59 (1.3%) |
| Ishikawa 21 (2022) | Single center‐retrospective | Saitama | Unclear | 801 | 13 (1.6%) |
| Yamaoka 22 (2022) | Single center‐retrospective | Shizuoka | Predominant | 519 | 3 (0.6%) |
| Kudo 5 (2021) | Multicenter‐retrospective | Japan | Least | 4073 | 383 (9.4%) |
| Ouchi 16 (2020) | Single center‐retrospective | Aichi | Predominant | 458 | 4 (0.9%) |
| Mochizuki 17 (2020) | Single center‐retrospective | Kanagawa | Least | 1142 | 149 (13.0%) |
| Yasue 8 (2019) | Single center‐retrospective | Tokyo | Least | 846 | 93 (11.0%) |
| Okamura 23 (2016) | Single center‐retrospective | Niigata | Predominant | 265 | 7 (2.6%) |
| Yoshii 18 (2014) | Single center‐retrospective | Hokkaido | Least | 389 | 32 (8.2%) |
| Wada 20 (2013) | Single center‐retrospective | Kanagawa | Predominant | 120 | 6 (5.0%) |
| Nakadoi 24 (2012) | Multicenter‐retrospective | Hiroshima | Unclear | 499 | 19 (3.8%) |
| Kawaura 25 (2007) | Single center‐retrospective | Chiba | Least | 122 | 20 (16.4%) |
This study aimed to determine which method of tumor grading classification, the least or predominant differentiation analyses, is optimal for retrospectively assessing the risk of LNM in T1 CRC.
METHODS
Patients and study design
We included data from all patients with pathologically diagnosed T1 CRC who underwent primary or secondary surgical resection with lymph node dissection from April 2001 to October 2021 at Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital (Yokohama City, Japan). Patients with the following were ineligible for inclusion in this study: (1) endoscopic resection alone, (2) synchronous advanced cancer, (3) Lynch syndrome, (4) familial adenomatous polyposis, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) pre‐operative chemo‐ and/or radiotherapy, and (7) missing data.
Endpoints
The endpoint of this study was to determine whether the least or the predominant differentiation grading classification was the better variable for predicting the risk of LNM in T1 CRC when the lesion consisted of two or more levels of differentiation. In our study, tumor grading was bifurcated into low‐ and high‐grade categories. Adenocarcinomas with good differentiation (G1, characterized by >95% gland formation) and moderate differentiation (G2, with 50–95% gland formation) were designated as low‐grade. Por (G3, exhibiting <50% gland formation) were categorized as high‐grade. Furthermore, Muc and Sig were classified as high‐grade because both are considered equivalent to high‐grade due to their associated risk of LNM in Japanese guidelines (Table 2). The predominant grade was defined by the largest area among two or more components (Figure 1).
TABLE 2.
Classification of tumor grading in this study.
| High‐grade | Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma |
|---|---|
| Mucinous carcinoma | |
| Signet‐ring cell carcinoma | |
| Low‐grade | Well‐differentiated adenocarcinoma |
| Moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma | |
| Papillary adenocarcinoma |
Clinical and pathological data
Patient characteristics analyzed included age, sex, tumor location, tumor size, tumor morphology, lymphovascular invasion, tumor grade (the least and the predominant differentiation), tumor budding, depth of submucosal invasion, and the status of LNM. Rectum was defined as the area between the upper border of the anal canal and the lower border of the second sacral vertebra. Tumor size was measured after formalin fixation. Tumor morphology was classified as pedunculated or non‐pedunculated according to the Paris classification. 26
All resected specimens were retrieved and immediately fixed in 10% buffered formalin. They were then cut at the point where the deepest invasion area could be exposed on the cut end surface with 2–3‐mm‐thick sections and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). All specimens were diagnosed by a single pathologist, adhering to the 2019 WHO Classification of Tumors and the prevailing guidelines of the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR). 7 , 14 Lymphatic invasion was diagnosed by H&E staining and immunostaining with the D2‐40 antibody, and vascular invasion was diagnosed by double staining with H&E and Victoria Blue or Elastica van Gieson. Tumor budding was defined as a cancer cell nest consisting of one or fewer than five cells infiltrating the interstitium at the invasive margin of the cancer. On selecting the region with the most tumor budding, the front of the tumor growth was observed at 200× magnification to count the number of tumor buds: BD1, 0–4; BD2, 5–9; and BD3, ≥ 10. The depth of submucosal invasion was classified according to JSCCR guidelines as <1000 μm (T1a) and ≥ 1000 μm (T1b). Criteria for subsequent bowel resection were applied when any of the following parameters were identified in the endoscopically resected specimen, in accordance with the JSCCR guidelines: (1) T1b (depth of submucosal invasion ≥1000 μm), (2) positive lymphovascular invasion, (3) poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, signet‐ring cell carcinoma, or mucinous carcinoma, or (4) a budding grade of BD2/3 at the point of deepest invasion. In our study, we utilized the least differentiation analysis to assess tumor grading for the criteria guiding secondary surgery. Operative specimens were used as the gold standard for the presence or absence of LNM.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables were reported as the mean ± standard deviation. Dichotomous variables were compared using chi‐squared or Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. Multivariate logistic regression analysis regarding LNM was subsequently performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). McNemar's test was used to compare the sensitivity and specificity between the two methods. All statistical analyses were performed using R for Windows 4.0.3. All p‐values were two‐sided, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Ethical considerations
This study was approved by the institutional review board of Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital (approval no. 20H022) and was registered with the University Hospital Medical Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN 000042622). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before treatment.
RESULTS
Study cohort
Figure 2 shows the study flowchart. A total of 1038 patients with pT1 CRC underwent initial or additional surgical resection with lymph node dissection during the study period. Of these, 28 patients with synchronous invasive cancers at the time of resection, three with suspected Lynch syndrome, two with familial adenomatous polyposis, four with inflammaroty bowel disease, one with pre‐operative chemo‐ and/or radiotherapy, and 29 with missing data from patient files and local registries for variables were excluded. Thus, 971 patients were eligible and included in the analyses. Table 3 presents the clinicopathological characteristics of the patients in this study. The LNM rate was 9.8% (95/971), and the mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 20 ± 11 (median, 19).
FIGURE 2.
Study flow chart.
TABLE 3.
Patient baseline characteristics (n = 971).
|
Total (n = 971) |
LNM‐positive (n = 95) |
LNM‐negative (n = 876) |
p‐value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean years ± SD | 66 ± 12 | 64 ± 11 | 66 ± 11 | 0.02 |
| Sex, n (%) | 0.02 | |||
| Male | 599 (61.7) | 48 (50.5) | 551 (62.9) | |
| Female | 372 (38.3) | 47 (49.5) | 325 (37.1) | |
| Tumor location, n (%) | 0.58 | |||
| Colon | 695 (71.6) | 76 (80.0) | 720 (82.2) | |
| Rectum | 276 (28.4) | 19 (20.0) | 156 (17.8) | |
| Tumor size, mean mm ± SD | 21 ± 15 | 21 ± 13 | 21 ± 12 | 0.93 |
| Tumor morphology, n (%) | 1.00 | |||
| Pedunculated | 94 (9.7) | 9 (9.5) | 85 (9.7) | |
| Non‐pedunculated | 877 (90.3) | 86 (90.5) | 791 (90.3) | |
| Initial treatment | 0.45 | |||
| Endoscopic resection | 431 (44.4) | 46 (48.4) | 385 (43.9) | |
| Surgical resection | 540 (55.6) | 49 (51.6) | 491 (56.1) | |
| Lymphovascular invasion, n (%) | <0.0001 | |||
| Positive | 536 (55.2) | 88 (92.6) | 448 (51.1) | |
| Negative | 435 (44.8) | 7 (7.4) | 428 (48.9) | |
| Histological differentiation (least), n (%) | <0.01 | |||
| High‐grade (Por/Muc/Sig) | 165 (17.0) | 26 (27.4) | 139 (15.9) | |
| Low‐grade (Well/Mod/Pap) | 806 (83.0) | 69 (72.6) | 737 (84.1) | |
| Histological differentiation (predominant), n (%) | 0.18 | |||
| High‐grade (Por/Muc/Sig) | 8 (0.8) | 2 (2.1) | 6 (0.7) | |
| Low‐grade (Well/Mod/Pap) | 963 (99.2) | 93 (97.9) | 870 (99.3) | |
| Tumor budding, n (%) | <0.0001 | |||
| Grade 1 | 736 (75.8) | 54 (56.8) | 682 (77.9) | |
| Grade 2/3 | 235 (24.2) | 41 (43.2) | 194 (22.1) | |
| Depth of submucosal invasion, n (%) | 0.73 | |||
| pT1a | 110 (11.3) | 9 (9.5) | 101 (11.5) | |
| pT1b | 861 (88.7) | 86 (90.5) | 775 (88.5) |
Results are expressed as number of patients (%).
Abbreviations: LNM, lymph node metastasis, Mod, moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma; Muc, mucinous carcinoma; Pap, papillary adenocarcinoma; Por, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; SD, standard deviation; Sig, signet‐ring cell carcinoma; Well, well‐differentiated adenocarcinoma.
The least grade versus predominant differentiation grading classification
Table 4 compares the predictive ability of the least and predominant differentiation analysis for the presence of LNM as a single predictor. The rate of the high grade was 17.0% (95% CI, 14.7%–19.5%) in the least differentiation analysis and 0.8% (95% CI, 0.45%–1.6%) in the predominant differentiation analysis. The sensitivity for LNM was 27.4% (95% CI, 18.7%–37.5%) in the least differentiation analysis and 2.1% (95% CI, 0.3%–7.4%) in the predominant differentiation analysis (p < 0.01), while the specificity was 84.1% (95% CI, 81.5%–86.5%) and 99.3% (98.5%–99.7%), respectively (p < 0.01).
TABLE 4.
Predictive value of tumor grade for lymph node metastasis as a single predictor (the least vs. predominant differentiation analyses).
|
Least % (95% CI) |
Predominant % (95% CI) |
p‐value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rates of high‐grade |
165/971 17.0% (14.7%–19.5%) |
8/971 0.8% (0.4%–1.6%) |
<0.01 |
| Sensitivity |
26/95 27.4% (18.7%–37.5%) |
2/95 2.1% (0.3%–7.4%) |
<0.01 * |
| Specificity |
737/876 84.1% (81.5%–86.5%) |
870/876 99.3% (98.5%–99.7%) |
<0.01 * |
McNemar's test, CI, confidence interval.
The association between various factors and LNM, as well as the OR for clinicopathological determinants in both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, are delineated in Tables 5 and 6. Univariate analysis revealed a significant correlation between LNM and tumor grade with the least differentiation analysis (p < 0.01), in contrast to the non‐significant association with tumor grade via predominant differentiation analysis (p = 0.18). Multivariate logistic regression substantiated tumor grade via least differentiation analysis as an independent prognostic factor (p = 0.04, OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00–2.83), whereas tumor grade based on predominant differentiation did not retain independent predictive value (p = 0.40, OR 2.07, 95% CI 0.38–11.2).
TABLE 5.
Relationships between clinicopathological factors and least differentiation analysis.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LNM+ (n = 95) |
LNM− (n = 876) |
p‐value | OR (95% CI) | p‐value | |
| Age (<70 years) | 56 (58.9) | 504 (57.5) | 0.83 | 0.96 (0.61–1.51) | 0.85 |
| Sex (male) | 48 (50.5) | 551 (62.9) | 0.02 | 0.52 (0.33–0.81) | <0.01 |
| Tumor location (colon) | 76 (80.0) | 720 (82.2) | 0.58 | 1.03 (0.58–1.83) | 0.90 |
|
Tumor size (≥20 mm) |
44 (46.3) | 409 (46.7) | 0.99 | 1.06 (0.67–1.67) | 0.80 |
|
Tumor morphology (pedunculated) |
9 (9.5) | 85 (9.7) | 1.00 | 1.13 (0.50–2.55) | 0.76 |
|
Initial treatment (Surgical resection) |
49 (51.6) | 491 (56.1) | 0.45 | 0.83 (0.53–1.32) | 0.43 |
| Lymphovascular invasion (+) | 88 (92.6) | 448 (51.1) | <0.0001 | 11.47 (5.15–25.5) | <0.0001 |
|
Histological differentiation (least) (Por/Muc/Sig) |
26 (27.4) | 139 (15.9) | <0.01 | 1.68 (1.00–2.83) | 0.04 |
|
Tumor budding (BD 2 or 3) |
41 (43.2) | 194 (22.1) | <0.0001 | 1.53 (0.96–2.43) | 0.07 |
|
Depth of submucosal invasion (T1b) |
86 (90.5) | 775 (88.5) | 0.73 | 0.82 (0.37–1.80) | 0.62 |
Results are expressed as number of patients (%).
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LNM, lymph node metastasis; Muc, mucinous carcinoma; OR, odds ratio; Por, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; Sig, signet‐ring cell carcinoma.
TABLE 6.
Relationships between clinicopathological factors and lymph node metastasis (Predominant differentiation analysis).
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LNM+ (n = 95) |
LNM− (n = 876) |
p‐value |
OR (95% CI) |
p‐value | |
| Age (<70 years) | 56 (58.9) | 504 (57.5) | 0.83 | 0.96 (0.61–1.51) | 0.89 |
| Sex (male) | 48 (50.5) | 551 (62.9) | 0.02 | 0.52 (0.33–0.81) | <0.01 |
| Tumor location (colon) | 76 (80.0) | 720 (82.2) | 0.58 | 1.03 (0.58–1.83) | 0.88 |
| Tumor size (≥20 mm) | 44 (46.3) | 409 (46.7) | 0.99 | 1.06 (0.67–1.67) | 0.79 |
| Tumor morphology (pedunculated) | 9 (9.5) | 85 (9.7) | 1.00 | 1.13 (0.50–2.55) | 0.87 |
| Initial treatment (Surgical resection) | 49 (51.6) | 491 (56.1) | 0.45 | 0.83 (0.53–1.32) | 0.39 |
| Lymphovascular invasion (+) | 88 (92.6) | 448 (51.1) | <0.0001 | 11.47 (5.15–25.5) | <0.0001 |
| Histological differentiation (Predominant) (Por/Muc/Sig) | 2 (2.1) | 6 (0.7) | 0.18 | 2.07 (0.38–11.2) | 0.40 |
| Tumor budding (BD 2 or 3) | 41 (43.2) | 194 (22.1) | <0.0001 | 1.53 (0.96–2.43) | 0.04 |
| Depth of submucosal invasion (T1b) | 86 (90.5) | 775 (88.5) | 0.73 | 0.82 (0.37–1.80) | 0.66 |
Results are expressed as number of patients (%).
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; LNM, lymph node metastasis; Muc, mucinous carcinoma; OR, odds ratio; Por, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; Sig, signet‐ring cell carcinoma.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we investigated which method of assessing histological differentiation grade as a risk factor for LNM in patients with T1 CRC (the least or predominant differentiation analyses) was superior with respect to diagnostic performance. We concluded that tumor grade, when assessed through least differentiation analysis, emerged as an independent prognostic factor for LNM, unlike when evaluated via predominant differentiation. In addition, the least differentiation analysis showed higher sensitivity, reducing the risk of misclassifying patients with LNM as negative in T1 CRC, although the predominant differentiation analysis showed higher specificity, preventing potentially unnecessary surgeries.
The WHO classification uses the least differentiation analysis, while JSCCR guidelines adopt the predominant differentiation analysis. However, the assessment of tumor grade according to the least or predominant component actually depends on the institution in Japan (Table 1). Among the nine single institutions, the least differentiation analysis was used in four, the predominant differentiation analysis was adopted in four, and the method used in the remaining one institution was unclear. 8 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 When classified by the predominant differentiation analysis, 0.8% (8/971) of the cohort was defined as high‐grade in the present study which is equal to the 0.6%–5.0% found in the previous studies with the predominant differentiation analysis. 16 , 20 , 22 , 23 It suggests that this method may lack the sensitivity to act as a risk factor. This study underscores and contributes to the discourse on this issue. When classified by the least differentiation analysis, 17.0% (165/971) of the cohort was defined as high‐risk for LNM in the present study compared with 8.2%–16.4% in previous studies. 8 , 17 , 18 , 25
Sensitivity was higher when using the least differentiation analysis (27.4%) compared with the predominant differentiation analysis (2.1%). This suggests that classifying tumor grade according to the least differentiation analysis is preferable to avoid missing an LNM‐positive case. However, specificity was lower using the least differentiation analysis (84.1%) than the predominant differentiation analysis (99.3%), which could lead to an increase in unnecessary surgeries. Our dataset lacked LNM‐positive cases that were deemed high risk through least differentiation analysis yet low risk by predominant differentiation analysis, thus precluding a direct assessment of least differentiation's efficacy. This could be attributable to the high incidence of T1b (88.7%) and the strong correlation between lymphovascular invasion and LNM. In this study, the assessment of lymphovascular invasion, one of the most reliable predictors for LNM, was supplemented with immunohistochemical staining techniques, including D2‐40 for lymphatic invasion and Victoria Blue/Elastica van Gieson for vascular invasion, in addition to standard techniques. As a result, the positivity rate of lymphovascular invasion (55.2%) was higher than that reported in other studies (39%–42%), leading to a higher odds ratio for LNM of 11.5, compared to 4.2–8.1 reported in previous studies. 8 , 27
This study had several limitations. First, it was a retrospective single‐center study limited by a relatively small sample size compared with recent large‐scale multicenter studies of over 4000 T1 CRC cases. 5 , 28 Secondly, our analysis did not consider T1 CRCs managed solely through endoscopic treatment, where LNM status remained undetermined. Consequently, this exclusion encompassed 29 high‐grade cases identified by least differentiation analysis and none by predominant differentiation analysis, potentially introducing selection bias into our study results.
In conclusion, tumor grading with the least differentiation analysis was an independent risk factor for LNM in T1 CRC. The least differentiation analysis of assessing tumor grading had a higher sensitivity for LNM in T1 CRC than the predominant differentiation analysis.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Sarah Williams, PhD, from Edanz (https://jp.edanz.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.
Registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN 000042622
REFERENCES
- 1. Toes‐Zoutendijk E, Kooyker AI, Elferink MA et al. Stage distribution of screen‐detected colorectal cancers in the Netherlands. Gut 2018; 67: 1745–1746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Zwager LW, Bastiaansen BAJ, van der Spek BW et al. Endoscopic full‐thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: A retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 475–485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Ichimasa K, Kudo SE, Koh CJ, Yeoh KG, Mori Y. Endoscopic full‐thickness resection for complex colorectal lesions – What's the next step? Scand J Gastroenterol 2022; 57: 1531–1532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Moons LMG, Bastiaansen BAJ, Richir MC et al. Endoscopic intermuscular dissection for deep submucosal invasive cancer in the rectum: A new endoscopic approach. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 993–998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Kudo SE, Ichimasa K, Villard B et al. Artificial intelligence system to determine risk of T1 colorectal cancer metastasis to lymph node. Gastroenterology 2021; 160: 1075–1084.e2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Bosch SL, Teerenstra S, de Wilt JH, Cunningham C, Nagtegaal ID. Predicting lymph node metastasis in pT1 colorectal cancer: A systematic review of risk factors providing rationale for therapy decisions. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 827–834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hashiguchi Y, Muro K, Saito Y et al. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2019 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2020; 25: 1–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Yasue C, Chino A, Takamatsu M et al. Pathological risk factors and predictive endoscopic factors for lymph node metastasis of T1 colorectal cancer: A single‐center study of 846 lesions. J Gastroenterol 2019; 54: 708–717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Miyachi H, Kudo SE, Ichimasa K et al. Management of T1 colorectal cancers after endoscopic treatment based on the risk stratification of lymph node metastasis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 31: 1126–1132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Tamaru Y, Oka S, Tanaka S et al. Long‐term outcomes after treatment for T1 colorectal carcinoma: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. J Gastroenterol 2017; 52: 1169–1179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Ichimasa K, Kudo SE, Miyachi H et al. Current problems and perspectives of pathological risk factors for lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer: Systematic review. Dig Endosc 2022; 34: 901–912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Ichimasa K, Kudo SE, Yeoh KG. Which variable better predicts the risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer: Highest grade or predominant histological differentiation? Dig Endosc 2022; 34: 1494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Japanese Society for Cancer of the C, Rectum . Japanese Classification of Colorectal, Appendiceal, and Anal Carcinoma: The 3d English Edition [Secondary Publication]. J Anus Rectum Colon 2019; 3: 175–195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board . Digestive system tumours: WHO Classification of Tumours, 5th edn, Geneva: World Health Organization, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Yamaoka Y, Imai K, Shiomi A et al. Endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer prior to surgery does not affect surgical adverse events and recurrence. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 5006–5016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Ouchi A, Toriyama K, Kinoshita T et al. Variations in clinical features and oncologic behaviors of T1 colorectal cancer according to tumor location. Int J Clin Oncol 2020; 25: 1130–1136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Mochizuki K, Kudo SE, Ichimasa K et al. Left‐sided location is a risk factor for lymph node metastasis of T1 colorectal cancer: A single‐center retrospective study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020; 35: 1911–1919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Yoshii S, Nojima M, Nosho K et al. Factors associated with risk for colorectal cancer recurrence after endoscopic resection of T1 tumors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 292–302.e3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Nakadoi K, Oka S, Tanaka S et al. Condition of muscularis mucosae is a risk factor for lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal carcinoma. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 1269–1276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Wada H, Shiozawa M, Sugano N et al. Lymphatic invasion identified with D2‐40 immunostaining as a risk factor of nodal metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013; 18: 1025–1031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Ishikawa S, Hirano Y, Deguchi K et al. Risk factors for lymph node metastasis and recurrence in T1 colorectal cancer: Analysis of 801 patients in a single institute. Am Surg 2022: 31348221146975. doi: 10.1177/00031348221146975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Yamaoka Y, Shiomi A, Kagawa H et al. Lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer with the only high‐risk histology of submucosal invasion depth ≥ 1000 mum. Int J Colorectal Dis 2022; 37: 2387–2395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Okamura T, Shimada Y, Nogami H et al. Tumor budding detection by immunohistochemical staining is not superior to hematoxylin and eosin staining for predicting lymph node metastasis in pT1 colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2016; 59: 396–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Nakadoi K, Tanaka S, Kanao H et al. Management of T1 colorectal carcinoma with special reference to criteria for curative endoscopic resection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 1057–1062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Kawaura K, Fujii S, Murata Y et al. The lymphatic infiltration identified by D2‐40 monoclonal antibody predicts lymph node metastasis in submucosal invasive colorectal cancer. Pathobiology 2007; 74: 328–335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: Esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3–S43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ueno H, Hase K, Hashiguchi Y et al. Novel risk factors for lymph node metastasis in early invasive colorectal cancer: A multi‐institution pathology review. J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 1314–1323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Kajiwara Y, Oka S, Tanaka S et al. Nomogram as a novel predictive tool for lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer treated with endoscopic resection: A nationwide, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 97: 1119–1128.e5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]