A novel tumor-based epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition score that associates with prognosis and metastasis in patients with stage II/III colorectal cancer

It is increasingly appreciated that host factors within the tumor center and microenvironment play a key role in dictating colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes. As a result, the metastatic process has now been defined as a result of epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT). Establishment of the role of EMT within the tumor center and its effect on the tumor microenvironment would be beneficial for prognosis and therapeutic intervention in CRC. The present study assessed five immunohistochemical EMT markers within the tumor center on a 185 Stage II/III CRC patient tissue microarray. In 185 patients with CRC, cytoplasmic snail (HR 1.94 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15–3.29, p = 0.012) and a novel combined EMT score (HR 3.86 95% CI 2.17–6.86, p < 0.001) were associated with decreased cancer‐specific survival. The combined EMT score was also associated with increased tumor budding (p = 0.046), and systemic inflammation (p = 0.007), as well as decreased memory T‐cells within the stroma (p = 0.030) and at the invasive margin (p = 0.035). Furthermore, the combined EMT score was associated with cancer‐specific survival independent of TNM‐stage (HR 4.12 95% CI 2.30–7.39, p < 0.001). In conclusion, a novel combined EMT score stratifies patient's survival in Stage II/III CRC and associates with key factors of tumor metastasis. Therefore, the combined EMT score could be used to identify patients at risk of micrometastases and who may benefit from standard adjuvant therapy, potentially in combination with EMT blockade

The Glasgow Microenvironment Score associates with prognosis and adjuvant chemotherapy response in colorectal cancer

Background: The Glasgow Microenvironment Score (GMS) combines peritumoural inflammation and tumour stroma percentage to assess interactions between tumour and microenvironment. This was previously demonstrated to associate with colorectal cancer (CRC) prognosis, and now requires validation and assessment of interactions with adjuvant therapy. Methods: Two cohorts were utilised; 862 TNM I–III CRC validation cohort, and 2912 TNM II–III CRC adjuvant chemotherapy cohort (TransSCOT). Primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). Exploratory endpoint was adjuvant chemotherapy interaction. Results: GMS independently associated with DFS (p = 0.001) and RFS (p &lt; 0.001). GMS significantly stratified RFS for both low risk (GMS 0 v GMS 2: HR 3.24 95% CI 1.85–5.68, p &lt; 0.001) and high-risk disease (GMS 0 v GMS 2: HR 2.18 95% CI 1.39–3.41, p = 0.001). In TransSCOT, chemotherapy type (pinteraction = 0.013), but not duration (p = 0.64) was dependent on GMS. Furthermore, GMS 0 significantly associated with improved DFS in patients receiving FOLFOX compared with CAPOX (HR 2.23 95% CI 1.19–4.16, p = 0.012). Conclusions: This study validates the GMS as a prognostic tool for patients with stage I–III colorectal cancer, independent of TNM, with the ability to stratify both low- and high-risk disease. Furthermore, GMS 0 could be employed to identify a subset of patients that benefit from FOLFOX over CAPOX