Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Conflict of Interest
    • Informed Consent
    • Human and Animal Rights
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
  • ascls.org
    • ascls.org

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
  • ascls.org
    • ascls.org
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Conflict of Interest
    • Informed Consent
    • Human and Animal Rights
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
  • Follow ASCLS on Twitter
  • Visit ASCLS on Facebook
  • Follow ASCLS on Instagram
  • RSS Feed
Research ArticleFocus

Histologic and Immunochemical Assessment of Colorectal Cancers

Dale Telgenhoff, Brooke Dubansky and Sally Lewis
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science April 2023, 36 (2) 55-60; DOI: https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.2022003207
Dale Telgenhoff
Oakland University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brooke Dubansky
Louisiana State University School of Veterinary Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sally Lewis
Tarleton State University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

  1. Dale Telgenhoff
  2. Brooke Dubansky
  3. Sally Lewis
  1. Oakland University
  2. Louisiana State University School of Veterinary Medicine
  3. Tarleton State University
  1. Address for Correspondence: Dale Telgenhoff
    , Oakland University, dtelgenh{at}gmail.com

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

  • 1. Define the grade and stage system used to classify colorectal cancers.

  • 2. Summarize how staging is useful in prognosis and treatment.

  • 3. List and describe the most common markers used in the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer.

  • 4. Describe Lynch syndrome and the role of mismatch repair proteins.

ABSTRACT

Traditional assessment of colorectal cancer includes gross anatomy, routine histology, special stains, and immunohistochemistry. Newer methods, including molecular techniques, can better predict recurrence potential and directed treatments. Distinction of benign versus malignant neoplasms leads to a series of additional tests that are useful in guiding diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. In this article, we focus on the histological assessment of grade and stage of the tumor, utilizing the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines. We then discuss the definition and utility of cancer staging in the determination of treatment. The 5-year median survival rate estimate is based on these staging principles; thus, practitioners utilize this system to develop a precise treatment plan taking individual patient variables into consideration. Screening of the patient for specific tumor markers from the serum or on the excised neoplasm further helps elucidate cancer subtype and therapy. Markers, such as carcinoembryonic antigen C-reactive protein in the serum as well as numerous immunohistochemical markers, are utilized for this purpose. Finally, we examine Lynch syndrome, mismatch repair proteins, and microsatellite instability as additional markers and potential treatment targets.

ABBREVIATIONS:
  • APC - adenomatous polyposis coli
  • CA - carbohydrate antigen
  • CAP - College of American Pathologists
  • CEA - carcinoembryonic antigen
  • CK - cytokeratin
  • CRC - colorectal cancer
  • FFPE - formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded
  • H&E - hematoxylin and eosin
  • IHC - immunohistochemistry
  • MMR - mismatch repair
  • PAS - periodic acid–Schiff
INDEX TERMS:
  • histopathology
  • colorectal cancer staging
  • immunohistochemistry
  • tumor markers

INITIAL HISTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Traditional histological assessment of colorectal cancer (CRC) includes size of the polyp, histologic type, tumor grade, stage, and lymph or vascular invasion.1 Newer methods, including molecular techniques, can better predict recurrence potential and directed treatments. Polyps removed during routine colonoscopy are first sent to the anatomic pathology gross room for examination and preliminary assessment. Appearance of the tumor on examination of the patient and in the gross room gives the laboratorian an idea of the type of tumor and cancerous process. Benign tumors tend to be encapsulated, with an expansile growth pattern (similar to blowing up a balloon).2 Gross room bisection of the benign tumor reveals a homogenous cut surface, typically lacking a necrotic core. By contrast, growth of malignant tumors tends to be invasive rather than expansive. Necrotic cores and a nonhomogenous surface are commonly seen as well as invasion into the lymphatic system and surrounding blood vessels. The grossing pathologist sampling the tissue can submit the bisected polyp in toto, meaning the entire polyp is placed into a cassette for processing and histological examination. Invasive CRCs that arrive in the gross room with sentinel lymph nodes and underlying tissue require sampling of various components of the tissues and multiple cassettes submitted for histology processing.

Initial microscopic evaluation of the tumor involves examination of the hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained section to assess preliminary grading of the tumor for recapitulation of normal features (Table 1). Pathologists grade the specific tumor type according to well-defined grading criteria utilizing the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines.3,4 Well-differentiated colorectal tumors that recapitulate normal colon epithelial histology with greater than 95% gland formation are designated grade 1. Mucus production can also be a component assigning grade, as grade 1 tumors tend to have near-normal mucus-producing cells.5 Mucin can be assessed on the H&E slide, or additional special stains, such as the periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) or mucin stain, may be performed.6 Grade 2 and grade 3 tumors reveal less differentiation and gland formation between 50% and 95% (grade 2) or less than 50% (grade 3).1 Mucus may or may not be present, dependent on the specific subtype of the tumor, as described previously. Grade 4 tumors lack normal colon epithelial appearance, with no gland formation or mucin production. The cancer grade is an important component of the overall staging of cancers because it provides the tumor characteristics that are a component of the cancer staging. Low-grade tumors generally have a better prognosis and respond better to treatment than do high-grade neoplasms.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Histological morphology of tumors with H&E staining

CANCER STAGE

Cancer staging includes the examination of the microscopic tumor characteristics in addition to the degree of spread and migration to distant sites. The stage (I–IV) is assigned at the time of diagnosis of CRC but may be updated as the tumor progresses or the patient responds to treatment. Staging gives the physician and patient an idea of the severity of the disease and guides the treatment plan. Low-stage cancers may often be treated with surgical removal alone, whereas higher staging scores may require a much more aggressive treatment plan. Cancer staging involves 3 main components known as the TNM score. In this scoring system, the T stands for tumor characteristics, the N for lymph node involvement, and the M for metastasis. According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging guide, CRC T scores vary from Tis (in situ dysplasia) to T4 (invasion into visceral peritoneum or adjacent organs).1 The N score ranges from no lymph node invasion (N0) to migration in 4 or more regional lymph nodes (N2). When the lymph nodes cannot be assessed, the score is assigned as NX. The final component is distant metastasis, which is either absent (M0), present (M1), or unable to assess (MX). The scores for the 3 categories are then used to assign the stage, and any metastasis is automatically categorized as stage IV.7⇓-9 The 5-year median survival rate is based on reports of patient mortality after being initially assigned a specific stage. Patients assigned to a higher stage may elect for more aggressive or experimental treatment methods. Early detection is key to survival because tumors identified as stage I have a mean 5-year survivability of 74%.1 This drops as the stage increases, with a 5-year survival rate for stage IV CRCs with multiple metastases of less than 15%.10,11 Although it is important to include the staging in any discussion with the patient regarding prognosis, it is also essential to include patient characteristics in the treatment scheme. Variables such as age, sex, nutritional status, race, and comorbidities have been shown to have a significant effect on outcomes,10,12⇓-14 but perhaps even more important is the patient’s quality of life and risk versus reward stratification in the decision-making process. Recommendations from the National Cancer Institute’s Physician Data Query for adults with CRC are shown in Table 2.15 As can be seen from this table, stage 0–II CRCs are typically treated with surgery alone. A stage III diagnosis will involve adjuvant chemotherapy, usually with a 5-fluorouracil derivative or platinum-based chemotherapy. Stage IV CRC (with distant metastasis) requires more aggressive treatment, often dependent on the organ of metastasis. Treatment options for these patients include (in addition to surgery) chemotherapy, ablation of the metastatic site, and novel therapies.16⇓-18

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

CRC staging

CRC MARKERS

Screening of the patient for specific tumor markers may be performed from the serum or the excised polyp (See Table 3). Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a protein that is normally expressed in fetal tissues as a cell adhesion marker. Increased expression of CEA in the serum or colon polyp is a nonspecific marker for carcinomas in general15,19,20; however, it should not be used as a general screening tool for CRC because it may be elevated in several nonneoplastic conditions. Increasing levels of CEA in the serum have been correlated with increased levels of metastases in CRCs. CEA is also useful for monitoring response to treatment because, following surgical resection of the carcinoma, CEA should return to normal levels in the serum. The CEA test is an immunoassay performed on serum, and normal values are typically less than 3 ng/mL.21 Another nonspecific marker in the serum in CRC patients is C-reactive protein.22 This marker is increased dramatically in cases of inflammation and therefore may indicate any number of possible disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease (such as Crohn’s disease or irritable bowel syndrome).23 Additional serum markers that have been used in monitoring patients with advanced disease include carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases type 1, CA 242, interleukin-6, and soluble CD40 ligand.19,22,24

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Common markers used in screening, diagnosis, and prognosis of CRC

The major uses for immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining in CRC include diagnosis of neoplasms, prognostication, choice of pharmacotherapy, and monitoring response to therapy.6,15,25 IHC staining may be performed on the same tissue submitted for routine processing or may come from separate sections that have been frozen instead of going through formalin fixation. These sections are ideal due to the retention of immunogenicity in the tissue but may not always be possible because some IHC stains are requested after the tissue has been submitted. In addition, IHC staining that is performed on duplicate formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections as the H&E stain provides a comparison between 2 nearly identical sites in the case of serial sections.6 If working with FFPE sections, CAP guidelines recommend some form of antigen retrieval method to expose the antigenic proteins within the tissue.26 Heat or enzymatic methods of antigen retrieval accomplish this task with minimal disruption to normal tissue architecture. Regardless of the specific method, it should be first developed and validated according to the laboratory’s procedures and CAP’s guidelines. Maintaining a tissue bank of known positive and negative biopsies is useful in validation, which may be retained on site or requested from tissue banks.

In the case of a poorly differentiated tumor, an entire battery of IHC stains is generally indicated in order to differentiate the many different types of tumors. Cytokeratins (CKs) are a group of intermediate filaments numbered 1–20 found in epithelial cells,27 and a pancytokeratin stain that looks for multiple CKs simultaneously can be used to verify a carcinoma, especially one that has invaded lymph nodes or metastasized to distant sites.28 The most common pancytokeratin marker is AE1/AE3.29 However, by examining specific CKs, certain gastrointestinal cancers can be differentiated more accurately. For example, colorectal adenocarcinomas are generally positive for CK20 and negative for CK7.28,30 Epithelial mucins can be detected in mucinous tumors with special stains, such as the PAS stain,6 or by utilizing antibodies for specific mucin phenotypes, such as MUC2, MUC5AC, and MUC6.5 Increased MUC2 is also seen with microsatellite instability and may be useful in predicting resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy drugs.31 Additional IHC markers that have been referenced in the literature for diagnosis and/or prognosis of CRC include α-methyacyl-CoA racemase, villin, homeobox protein CDX-2, beta-catenin, and cadherin-17.30,32

Markers that are not specific for CRC can also be useful in examining the phenotype of the tumor cells in order to obtain a clearer picture of disease progression and ongoing mutations as the tumor undergoes uncontrolled proliferation. Cells undergoing rapid division can be examined using the proliferation markers Ki-67 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen because slower tumor growth leads to an improved prognosis. Tumor suppressor proteins that may become mutated during cancer progression include adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) and p53. These proteins are tasked with arresting the cell cycle when there is damage to the DNA or uncontrolled proliferation, and mutations in these genes lead to a worse prognosis. An estimated 60% of CRCs exhibit mutations in p53,33 which is one of the most commonly mutated genes in all cancer types. Tumor suppressors can still function at normal levels when only 1 of the 2 genes encoding tumor suppressor proteins (APC, p53) is mutated. This is referred to as the “2-hit” hypothesis. Proto-oncogene mutations result in the production of oncogenes producing aberrant proteins that only require 1 gene to be mutated to result in a cancerous phenotype. Proto-oncogenes that may be mutated in CRC include BRAF and KRAS.34,35

DNA REPAIR AND LYNCH SYNDROME

Lynch syndrome, historically referred to as hereditary nonpolyposis CRC, is an inherited condition that increases the risk of developing CRC and other cancer types throughout the life of the individual. In “nonpolyposis” CRC, the cancer can develop when there are very few polyps and in some cases without the development of polyps at all. Lynch syndrome accounts for 2%–3% of all CRCs but is the most common form of hereditary colon cancer.36 Individuals with Lynch syndrome inherit 1 or more germline mutations from a heterogenous group of genes with a similar function: DNA repair. These genes produce proteins that arrest cell cycle progression when base pair mismatches in DNA are detected during replication and activate mismatch repair (MMR) mechanisms that correct the aberrant sequence back to the original functional gene. During normal DNA replication, the enzyme DNA polymerase pairs the nitrogenous bases adenine and guanine to thymine and cytosine, respectively. Because DNA replication is semiconservative, a parent strand of DNA is used as a template for the developing daughter strand. If a mismatch occurs (adenine to cytosine or guanine to thymine), the repair proteins remove an entire segment of the daughter strand (identified through lack of methylation) and allow DNA polymerase to correct the error.37

The MMR system genes in the human include MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2,38 and mutation in any of these will increase the likelihood of developing CRC.39 Inherited mutations of these MMR genes (Lynch syndrome) occur in every cell of the body, consequently increasing the individual’s likelihood of developing multiple different cancer types. Because it is in every cell, the screening test for Lynch syndrome can be done from virtually any sample, including blood or saliva. An important point to consider is that testing for Lynch syndrome can be conducted on an individual who does not present with CRC and can be used to predict their risk for the development of multiple different cancer types. Nonhereditary mutations in the MMR genes are also possible as a CRC develops new mutations during uncontrolled proliferation, and, therefore, MMR mutation screening is also utilized for identified CRCs. This screening can be done directly on the tumor biopsy using IHC for the 4 previously mentioned MMR proteins, polymerase chain reaction–based microsatellite instability assay, or validated next-generation sequencing techniques.40 Patients with Lynch syndrome or neoplastic loss of MMR proteins and microsatellite instability may also benefit from a new class of antibody therapies called immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, etc.).41

  • Received May 6, 2024.
  • Accepted August 11, 2024.

American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Rubin P, Hansen JT. TNM Staging Atlas. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
  2. 2.↵
    McCance KL, Huether SE. Pathophysiology: The Biologic Basis for Disease in Adults and Children. 7th ed. Elsevier; 2014.
  3. 3.↵
    Sepulveda AR, Hamilton SR, Allegra CJ, et al. Molecular biomarkers for the evaluation of colorectal cancer: guideline from the American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(13):1453–1486. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.9807
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Lopes G, Stern MC, Temin S, et al. Early detection for colorectal cancer: ASCO resource-stratified guideline. J Glob Oncol. 2019;5(5):1–22. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00213
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Kurosawa T, Murakami T, Yamashiro Y, et al. Mucin phenotypes and clinicopathological features of colorectal adenocarcinomas: correlation with colorectal adenocarcinoma with enteroblastic differentiation. Pathol Res Pract. 2022;232:153840. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2022.153840
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Carson FL, Hladik C. Histotechnology: A Self-Instructional Text. 4th ed. ASCP Press; 2014.
  7. 7.↵
    Huang L, Luo S, Lai S, et al. Survival after curative resection for stage I colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22(1):192. doi: 10.1186/s12876-022-02276-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Sawayama H, Miyamoto Y, Hiyoshi Y, et al. Overall survival after recurrence in stage I-III colorectal cancer patients in accordance with the recurrence organ site and pattern. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2021;5(6):813–822. doi: 10.1002/ags3.12483
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Han EC, Kwon YH, Park KJ, et al; Seoul Colorectal Group (SECOG). Significance of lymph node metastasis in the survival of stage IV colorectal cancer by hematogenous metastasis. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2018;95(4):201–212. doi: 10.4174/astr.2018.95.4.201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Takamizawa Y, Shida D, Boku N, et al. Nutritional and inflammatory measures predict survival of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):1092. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07560-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Miyamoto Y, Hayashi N, Sakamoto Y, et al. Predictors of long-term survival in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer with multi-organ metastases: a single-center retrospective analysis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015;20(6):1140–1146. doi: 10.1007/s10147-015-0835-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Lin C-Y, Lin C-L, Huang W-T, Peng C-J, Su S-B, Guo H-R. Effect of diabetes mellitus comorbidity on outcomes in stages II and III colorectal cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2022;18(5):e289–e296. doi: 10.1111/ajco.13639
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    De Francia S, Berchialla P, Armando T, et al. Colorectal cancer chemotherapy: can sex-specific disparities impact on drug toxicities? Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2022;78(6):1029–1038. doi: 10.1007/s00228-022-03298-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Ogata T, Yoshida N, Sadakari Y, et al. Colorectal cancer surgery in elderly patients 80 years and older: a comparison with younger age groups. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022;13(1):137–148. doi: 10.21037/jgo-21-627
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Colon cancer treatment (PDQ®). National Cancer Institute. 2022. Accessed November 5, 2024. https://www.cancer.gov/types/colorectal/hp/colon-treatment-pdq#_145.
  16. 16.↵
    Kopetz S, Grothey A, Van Cutsem E, et al. Quality of life with encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib treatment in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: patient-reported outcomes from BEACON CRC. ESMO Open. 2022;7(3):100477. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100477
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Nozawa H, Takiyama H, Hasegawa K, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves prognosis of resectable stage IV colorectal cancer: a comparative study using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2019;11:1758835919838960. doi: 10.1177/1758835919838960
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Ballian N, Mahvi DM, Kennedy GD. Colonoscopic findings and tumor site do not predict bowel obstruction during medical treatment of stage IV colorectal cancer. Oncologist. 2009;14(6):580–585. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0271
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Forones NM, Tanaka M. CEA and CA 19-9 as prognostic indexes in colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 1999;46(26):905–908.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Buraggi GL, Gasparini M, Seregni E. Immunoscintigraphy of colorectal carcinoma with an anti-CEA monoclonal antibody: a critical review. Int J Rad Appl Instrum B. 1991;18(1):45–50. doi: 10.1016/0883-2897(91)90045-M
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Laposata M. Laposata’s Laboratory Medicine: Diagnosis of Disease in the Clinical Laboratory. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Education Medical; 2014.
  22. 22.↵
    Koper-Lenkiewicz OM, Dymicka-Piekarska V, Milewska AJ, Zińczuk J, Kamińska J. The relationship between inflammation markers (CRP, IL-6, sCD40L) and colorectal cancer stage, grade, size and location. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(8):1382. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11081382
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Kim ER, Chang DK. Colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: the risk, pathogenesis, prevention and diagnosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(29):9872–9881. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i29.9872
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, et al; National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers. Clin Chem. 2008;54(12):e11–e79. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2008.105601
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    Li Y, Yao Q, Zhang L, et al. Immunohistochemistry-based consensus molecular subtypes as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II colorectal cancer. Oncologist. 2020;25(12):e1968–e1979. doi: 10.1002/ONCO.13521
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Ella-Tongwiis P, Makanga A, Shergill I, Fôn Hughes S. Optimisation and validation of immunohistochemistry protocols for cancer research. Histol Histopathol. 2021;36(4):415–424. doi: 10.14670/HH-18-317
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Awasthi P, Thahriani A, Bhattacharya A. Keratins or cytokeratins - a review article. JAMDSR. 2016;4(4):140–148. doi: 10.21276/jamdsr.2016.4.4.30
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    Painter JT, Clayton NP, Herbert RA. Useful immunohistochemical markers of tumor differentiation. Toxicol Pathol. 2010;38(1):131–41. doi: 10.1177/0192623309356449
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Van Bockstal MR. Stains & CD markers: cytokeratin AE1/AE3. PathologyOutlines.com. 2022. Accessed June 7, 2022. https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stainsae1ae3.html.
  30. 30.↵
    Taliano RJ, LeGolvan M, Resnick MB. Immunohistochemistry of colorectal carcinoma: current practice and evolving applications. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(2):151–163. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2012.04.017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Ribeirinho-Soares S, Pádua D, Amaral AL, et al. Prognostic significance of MUC2, CDX2 and SOX2 in stage II colorectal cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):359. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08070-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Ordóñez NG. Cadherin 17 is a novel diagnostic marker for adenocarcinomas of the digestive system. Adv Anat Pathol. 2014;21(2):131–137. doi: 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Hassin O, Nataraj NB, Shreberk-Shaked M, et al. Different hotspot p53 mutants exert distinct phenotypes and predict outcome of colorectal cancer patients. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):2800. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-30481-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Gallo G, Sena G, Vescio G, et al. The prognostic value of KRAS and BRAF in stage I-III colorectal cancer. A systematic review. Ann Ital Chir. 2019;90:127–137.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Park HE, Yoo SY, Cho NY, et al. Tumor microenvironment-adjusted prognostic implications of the KRAS mutation subtype in patients with stage III colorectal cancer treated with adjuvant FOLFOX. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):14609. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-94044-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Abu-Ghazaleh N, Kaushik V, Gorelik A, Jenkins M, Macrae F. Worldwide prevalence of Lynch syndrome in patients with colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Genet Med. 2022;24(5):971–985. doi: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.01.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Brooker RJ. Concepts of Genetics. 4th ed. McGraw Hill; 2022.
  38. 38.↵
    Drogan C, Kupfer SS. Colorectal cancer screening recommendations and outcomes in Lynch syndrome. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2022;32(1):59–74. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2021.08.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Valle L, Gruber SB, Capellá G. Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: Genetic Basis and Clinical Implications. 1st ed. Springer; 2018.
  40. 40.↵
    Albert C. MMR, MSI testing guideline nears finish line. CAP Today. 2021. Accessed November 5, 2024. https://www.captodayonline.com/mmr-msi-testing-guideline-nears-finish-line/.
  41. 41.↵
    Fanale D, Corsini LR, Scalia R, et al. Can the tumor-agnostic evaluation of MSI/MMR status be the common denominator for the immunotherapy treatment of patients with several solid tumors? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2022;170:103597. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103597
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science: 36 (2)
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
Vol. 36, Issue 2
1 Apr 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Histologic and Immunochemical Assessment of Colorectal Cancers
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Histologic and Immunochemical Assessment of Colorectal Cancers
Dale Telgenhoff, Brooke Dubansky, Sally Lewis
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science Apr 2023, 36 (2) 55-60; DOI: 10.29074/ascls.2022003207

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Histologic and Immunochemical Assessment of Colorectal Cancers
Dale Telgenhoff, Brooke Dubansky, Sally Lewis
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science Apr 2023, 36 (2) 55-60; DOI: 10.29074/ascls.2022003207
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • LEARNING OBJECTIVES
    • ABSTRACT
    • INITIAL HISTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
    • CANCER STAGE
    • CRC MARKERS
    • DNA REPAIR AND LYNCH SYNDROME
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Molecular Characterization of Colorectal Cancers
  • The Role of the Laboratory in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Colorectal Carcinoma
Show more Focus

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • APC - adenomatous polyposis coli
  • CA - carbohydrate antigen
  • CAP - College of American Pathologists
  • CEA - carcinoembryonic antigen
  • CK - cytokeratin
  • CRC - colorectal cancer
  • FFPE - formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded
  • H&E - hematoxylin and eosin
  • IHC - immunohistochemistry
  • MMR - mismatch repair
  • PAS - periodic acid–Schiff
  • histopathology
  • colorectal cancer staging
  • immunohistochemistry
  • tumor markers

© 2025 The American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science

Powered by HighWire