The relationship between Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA), Warburg-subtype and survival: results from a large prospective series of colorectal cancer patients.

Background: Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA) is a recently identified haematoxylin & eosin (H&E)based histopathologic biomarker in gastrointestinal cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC), defined as direct contact between tumour cells and adipocytes at the tumour invasion front. The current study aimed at validating the prognostic relevance of SARIFA in a large population-based CRC series as well as at investigating the relationship between SARIFA-status and previously established Warburg-subtypes, both surrogates of the metabolic state of the tumour cells.

Methods: SARIFA-status (positive versus negative) was determined on H&E slides of 1,727 CRC specimens. Warburg-subtype (high versus moderate versus low) data was available from our previous study. The associations between SARIFA-status, Warburg-subtype, clinicopathological characteristics and CRC-specific as well as overall survival were investigated.

Results: 28.7% (n=496) CRC were SARIFA-positive. SARIFA-positivity was associated with more advanced disease stage, higher pT category, and more frequent lymph node involvement (all p<0.001). SARIFA-positivity was more common in Warburg-high CRC. 44.2% (n=219) of SARIFA-positive CRCs were Warburg-high compared to 22.8% (n=113) being Warburg-low and 33.1% (n=164) being Warburg-moderate (p<0.001). In multivariable-adjusted analysis, patients with SARIFA-positive CRCs had significantly poorer CRC-specific (HR_CRC-specific 1.65; 95% CI 1.41-1.93) and overall survival (HR_{overall survival} 1.46; 95% CI 1.28-1.67) independent of clinically known risk factors and independent of Warburg-subtype. Combining the SARIFA-status and the Warburg-subtype to a combination score (SARIFA-negative/Warburg-high versus SARIFA-positive/Warburg-low versus SARIFA-positive/Warburg-high, and so on) did not improve the survival prediction compared to the use of SARIFA-status alone (SARIFA-negative + Warburg-high: HR_CRC-specific 1.08; 95% CI 0.84-1.38; SARIFA-positive + Warburg-low: HR_CRC-specific 1.79; 95% CI 1.32-2.41; SARIFA-positive + Warburg-high: HR_CRC-specific 1.58; 95% CI 1.23-2.04).

Conclusions: Our current study is the by far largest external validation of SARIFA-positivity as a novel independent negative prognostic H&E-based biomarker in CRC. In addition, our study shows that SARIFA-positivity is associated with the Warburg-high subtype. Further research is warranted to provide a more mechanistic understanding of the underlying tumour biology. Based on our data, we conclude SARIFA-status should be implemented in pathologic routine practice to stratify CRC patients.