Molecular detection of lymph node micrometastases in colorectal cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A53 Objective: The clinical significance of lymph node micrometastases detected by immunological and molecular methods in node-negative colorectal cancer patients remains to be confirmed. In this study we compared the sensitivity of detection methods based on the transcriptional expression of several epithelial cell-specific genes in paraffin-embedded mesenteric lymph nodes, and assessed survival outcomes. Methods. Each block contained a variable number of nodes. RNA was extracted from 2 serial sections (20 μm each) and submitted to reverse transcription (RT). One seventh of cDNA was PCR amplified for 40 cycles at 60C, using gene-specific primers. Products were resolved by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis with a DNA mass ladder for quantitation. RNA integrity was verified by amplifying the GAPDH and selenoprotein P housekeeping genes.To estimate the relative number of metastatic cells present in lymph nodes a calibration curve was established by serial dilutions of total RNA from HCT116 cells (10 picog per cell equivalent) followed by RT-PCR. The lowest detection limits were 2, 15-30 and 60 cells for CEA, EZH2 and PRL3 respectively.The study group included 44 patients, 98 blocks and 437 lymph nodes;144 from 18 stage I patients; 124 from15 stage II; 119 from 7 stage III and 50 from 4 stage IV patients. On average 10 nodes were dissected per patient. Fifteen nodes (12.5%) of stage III cases and 7 nodes (14%) of stage IV were identified by hitopathology. Results. Several genes, always expressed in lymph nodes, proved unsuitable markers of micrometastases:cytokeratins (CK20), the CDX2 homeobox gene, osteopontin, decorin. MUC2 was weakly expressed in the nodes of 6 patients (14%). Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), enhancer of zeste (EZH2), and the tyrosine phosphatase PRL3 were differentially expressed. EZH2 was always co-expressed with either CEA or PRL3. EZH2-expressing cells were found in 6% of stage I patients but in >30% of stage II, III and IV patients. The proportion of cases with an estimated >50 PRL3-expressing cells per 10,000 node cells increased from 44% (8/18) for stage I, to 87% (13/15, stage II), 86% (6/7, stage III) and 75% (3/4, stage IV). Likewise, the proportion of cases with an estimated >10 CEA-expressing cells per 10,000 node cells increased from 22% in stage I, to 60% (stage II), to 71% (stage III). The proportion of cases in which CEA and PRL3 were highly co-expressed in lymph nodes also increased from 22% (stage I) to >70% in advanced stages.Three of 7 stage III (43%) and 3 of 4 stage IV patients (75%) succumbed to distant metastases within less than 5 years after surgery. All had received chemotherapy. In all 6 cases, high proportions of either CEA-(3 cases) or PRL3-expressing cells (5 cases) or both (3 cases) were found in their lymph nodes. The ability of the CEA and EZH2 assays to predict the outcome of node-negative patients is based on the findings that: (i) The single stage I patient who succumbed to the disease after 5 years demonstrated undetectable CEA and PRL3 cells in lymph nodes.The median follow up time of 12 other stage I patients, who expressed CEA alone (6), PRL3 alone (2), both CEA and PRL3 (2) and no marker was 55 months. (ii) Five of 15 stage II patients (33%) died between 11 months and 6 years after surgery, 2 of unrelated cancers.They all expressed either CEA, PRL3 or both (3cases) in lymph nodes. Eleven of 15 stage II patients (73%) highly co-expressed CEA and PRL3 in lymph nodes. Three of 11 (27%) succumbed to the disease. Conclusions. We conclude that CEA, PRL3 and EZH2-expressing cells are detectable in lymph nodes in amounts and frequencies consistent with the staged progression of the disease. A higher proportion of stage II-III than stage I cases co-express CEA and PRL3 in lymph nodes.High expression of either CEA, PRL3 or both may account for about 30% of stage II patients with poor prognosis and is not predictive of poor outcomes for stage I patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".