Cited by 105Genetic factors in colorectal cancerCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies

Morphological characterization of colorectal cancers in The Cancer Genome Atlas reveals distinct morphology–molecular associations: clinical and biological implications

Open access
Shia, Jinru, Schultz, Nikolaus, Kuk, Deborah, Vakiani, Efsevia, Middha, Sumit, Segal, Neil H, Hechtman, Jaclyn F, Berger, Michael F +6 more·2017·Modern Pathology

Abstract

The Cancer Genome Atlas data on colorectal carcinoma have provided a comprehensive view of the tumor's genomic alterations and their tumorigenic roles. Tumor morphology, however, has not been fully integrated into the analysis. The aim of this study was to explore relevant associations between tumor morphology and the newly characterized genomic alterations in colorectal carcinoma. Two hundred and seven colorectal carcinomas that had undergone whole-exome sequencing as part of The Cancer Genome Atlas project and had adequate virtual images in the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics constituted our study population. Upon analysis, a tight association between 'microsatellite instability-high histology' and microsatellite instability-high (P<0.001) was readily detected and helped validate our image-based histology evaluation. Further, we showed, (1) among all histologies, the not otherwise specified type had the lowest overall mutation count (P<0.001 for entire cohort, P<0.03 for the microsatellite-instable group), and among the microsatellite-instable tumors, this type also correlated with fewer frameshift mutations in coding mononucleotide repeats of a defined set of relevant genes (P<0.01); (2) cytosine phosphate guanine island methylator phenotype-high colorectal cancers with or without microsatellite instability tended to have different histological patterns: the former more often mucinous and the latter more often not otherwise specified; (3) mucinous histology was associated with more frequent alterations in BRAF, PIK3CA, and the transforming growth factor-β pathway when compared with non-mucinous histologies (P<0.001, P=0.01, and P<0.001, respectively); and (4) few colorectal cancers (<9%) exhibited upregulation of immune-inhibitory genes including major immune checkpoints; these tumors were primarily microsatellite-instable (up to 43%, vs <3% in microsatellite-stable group) and had distinctly non-mucinous histologies with a solid growth. These morphology-molecular associations are interesting and propose important clinical implications. The morphological patterns associated with alterations of immune checkpoint genes bear the potential to guide patient selection for clinical trials that target immune checkpoints in colorectal cancer, and provide directions for future studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/modpathol.2016.198

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Tol J, Nagtegaal ID, Punt CJ. BRAF mutation in meta- static colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;361: 98-99.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shia, J., Schultz, N., Kuk, D., Vakiani, E., Middha, S., Segal, N. H., Hechtman, J. F., Berger, M. F., Stadler, Z. K., Weiser, M. R., Wolchok, J. D., Boland, C. R., Gönen, M., & Klimstra, D. S.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Baylor University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Shia, Jinru
Venue
Modern Pathology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
599-609
ISSN
0893-3952 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2565789802
Cited by
105
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3
FWCI
5.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Modern Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Keywords
colorectal cancer, tumor morphology, histology, microsatellite instability, CpG island methylator phenotype, mucinous histology, frameshift mutation, BRAF, PIK3CA, TGF-beta signaling, immune checkpoint genes, tumor immune microenvironment, TCGA
MeSH terms
Carcinoma, Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Transforming Growth Factor beta, DNA Methylation, Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf, Microsatellite Instability, Class I Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review