Cited by 70Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesGenetic factors in colorectal cancerGene expression and cancer classification

Metastatic heterogeneity of the consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer

Open access
Eide, Peter W., Moosavi, Seyed H., Eilertsen, Ina A., Brunsell, Tuva H., Langerud, Jonas, Berg, Kaja C. G., Røsok, Bård I., Bjørnbeth, Bjørn A. +3 more·2021·npj Genomic Medicine

Abstract

Gene expression-based subtypes of colorectal cancer have clinical relevance, but the representativeness of primary tumors and the consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) for metastatic cancers is not well known. We investigated the metastatic heterogeneity of CMS. The best approach to subtype translation was delineated by comparisons of transcriptomic profiles from 317 primary tumors and 295 liver metastases, including multi-metastatic samples from 45 patients and 14 primary-metastasis sets. Associations were validated in an external data set (n = 618). Projection of metastases onto principal components of primary tumors showed that metastases were depleted of CMS1-immune/CMS3-metabolic signals, enriched for CMS4-mesenchymal/stromal signals, and heavily influenced by the microenvironment. The tailored CMS classifier (available in an updated version of the R package CMScaller) therefore implemented an approach to regress out the liver tissue background. The majority of classified metastases were either CMS2 or CMS4. Nonetheless, subtype switching and inter-metastatic CMS heterogeneity were frequent and increased with sampling intensity. Poor-prognostic value of CMS1/3 metastases was consistent in the context of intra-patient tumor heterogeneity.

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/s41525-021-00223-7

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 47 · Cited by 70

Authors
Eide, P. W., Moosavi, S. H., Eilertsen, I. A., Brunsell, T. H., Langerud, J., Berg, K. C. G., Røsok, B. I., Bjørnbeth, B. A., Nesbakken, A., Lothe, R. A., & Sveen, A.
Affiliations
Oslo University Hospital (NO)
Corresponding author
Sveen, Anita
Venue
npj Genomic Medicine
Published
2021-07-14
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
59-59
ISSN
2056-7944 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3182666770
Cited by
70
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3
FWCI
4.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Genomic Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Kreftforeningen (182759‐2016, 208336-2019)
  • Norges Forskningsråd (250993, 287899)
  • Helse Sør-Øst RHF (2016123, 2019042, 2017102)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
colorectal cancer, consensus molecular subtypes, metastatic heterogeneity, liver metastasis, subtype switching, tumor microenvironment, metabolic signals, mesenchymal subtype, prognostic value

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