T1 结直肠癌淋巴结转移风险分层评分--系统综述

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Rakesh Quinn, Giuleta Jamsari, Ewan MacDermid
{"title":"T1 结直肠癌淋巴结转移风险分层评分--系统综述","authors":"Rakesh Quinn,&nbsp;Giuleta Jamsari,&nbsp;Ewan MacDermid","doi":"10.1111/codi.17265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Local resection, by an endoscopic or surgical approach, has the potential to completely treat T1 colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, T1 CRCs have a 10% risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), requiring colonic resection and lymph node dissection. Several high-risk clinico-histopathological features are associated with LNMs and multiple risk stratification scores have been developed. In this systematic review, we aimed to analyse these scores to identify which is most accurate and clinically useful.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>A search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and EMBASE for T1 CRC risk assessment scores was performed following PRISMA guidelines.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of 323 studies, 22 full texts and three abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies developed clinicopathological scores presented as nomograms or algorithms. They used an average of 4.8 (SD ±1.72) parameters, the most utilized being tumour grade, lymphovascular invasion and tumour budding. Two studies incorporated preoperative CT results in their risk score. Artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning models were used for 10 studies, with pathologist-dependent parameters and pathologist-independent whole-slide imaging. The area under the curve (AUC) of the scores ranged from 0.57 to 0.99. Only two scores were externally validated, including a nomogram with an AUC of 0.77 and an AI model with an AUC of 0.83. The generalizability of several scores is limited by using special histopathology tests and AI programming/equipment.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>There are several promising risk stratification scores for predicting LNM, particularly with the advent of AI. However, no score adequately stratifies the independent risks of rectal and colonic malignant polyps. Further studies are required to address the heterogeneity and lack of external validation within these nonrandomized trials to provide a more accurate risk stratification of LNMs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10512,"journal":{"name":"Colorectal Disease","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk stratification scores for lymph node metastases in T1 colorectal cancer—A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Rakesh Quinn,&nbsp;Giuleta Jamsari,&nbsp;Ewan MacDermid\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/codi.17265\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>Local resection, by an endoscopic or surgical approach, has the potential to completely treat T1 colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, T1 CRCs have a 10% risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), requiring colonic resection and lymph node dissection. Several high-risk clinico-histopathological features are associated with LNMs and multiple risk stratification scores have been developed. In this systematic review, we aimed to analyse these scores to identify which is most accurate and clinically useful.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>A search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and EMBASE for T1 CRC risk assessment scores was performed following PRISMA guidelines.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Of 323 studies, 22 full texts and three abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies developed clinicopathological scores presented as nomograms or algorithms. They used an average of 4.8 (SD ±1.72) parameters, the most utilized being tumour grade, lymphovascular invasion and tumour budding. Two studies incorporated preoperative CT results in their risk score. Artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning models were used for 10 studies, with pathologist-dependent parameters and pathologist-independent whole-slide imaging. The area under the curve (AUC) of the scores ranged from 0.57 to 0.99. Only two scores were externally validated, including a nomogram with an AUC of 0.77 and an AI model with an AUC of 0.83. The generalizability of several scores is limited by using special histopathology tests and AI programming/equipment.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>There are several promising risk stratification scores for predicting LNM, particularly with the advent of AI. However, no score adequately stratifies the independent risks of rectal and colonic malignant polyps. Further studies are required to address the heterogeneity and lack of external validation within these nonrandomized trials to provide a more accurate risk stratification of LNMs.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Colorectal Disease\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Colorectal Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/codi.17265\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Colorectal Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/codi.17265","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk stratification scores for lymph node metastases in T1 colorectal cancer—A systematic review

Aim

Local resection, by an endoscopic or surgical approach, has the potential to completely treat T1 colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, T1 CRCs have a 10% risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), requiring colonic resection and lymph node dissection. Several high-risk clinico-histopathological features are associated with LNMs and multiple risk stratification scores have been developed. In this systematic review, we aimed to analyse these scores to identify which is most accurate and clinically useful.

Method

A search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and EMBASE for T1 CRC risk assessment scores was performed following PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Of 323 studies, 22 full texts and three abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies developed clinicopathological scores presented as nomograms or algorithms. They used an average of 4.8 (SD ±1.72) parameters, the most utilized being tumour grade, lymphovascular invasion and tumour budding. Two studies incorporated preoperative CT results in their risk score. Artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning models were used for 10 studies, with pathologist-dependent parameters and pathologist-independent whole-slide imaging. The area under the curve (AUC) of the scores ranged from 0.57 to 0.99. Only two scores were externally validated, including a nomogram with an AUC of 0.77 and an AI model with an AUC of 0.83. The generalizability of several scores is limited by using special histopathology tests and AI programming/equipment.

Conclusion

There are several promising risk stratification scores for predicting LNM, particularly with the advent of AI. However, no score adequately stratifies the independent risks of rectal and colonic malignant polyps. Further studies are required to address the heterogeneity and lack of external validation within these nonrandomized trials to provide a more accurate risk stratification of LNMs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Colorectal Disease
Colorectal Disease 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
406
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Diseases of the colon and rectum are common and offer a number of exciting challenges. Clinical, diagnostic and basic science research is expanding rapidly. There is increasing demand from purchasers of health care and patients for clinicians to keep abreast of the latest research and developments, and to translate these into routine practice. Technological advances in diagnosis, surgical technique, new pharmaceuticals, molecular genetics and other basic sciences have transformed many aspects of how these diseases are managed. Such progress will accelerate. Colorectal Disease offers a real benefit to subscribers and authors. It is first and foremost a vehicle for publishing original research relating to the demanding, rapidly expanding field of colorectal diseases. Essential for surgeons, pathologists, oncologists, gastroenterologists and health professionals caring for patients with a disease of the lower GI tract, Colorectal Disease furthers education and inter-professional development by including regular review articles and discussions of current controversies. Note that the journal does not usually accept paediatric surgical papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信