{"title":"T1 结直肠癌淋巴结转移风险分层评分--系统综述","authors":"Rakesh Quinn, Giuleta Jamsari, 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, Giuleta Jamsari, 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}
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.
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.