Table 5 Selected studies analyzing tumor budding, depth of submucosal invasion, tumor grade, and lymphatic invasion in pT1 carcinomas

From: Colorectal carcinomas with submucosal invasion (pT1): analysis of histopathological and molecular factors predicting lymph node metastasis

Study

Number of tumors analyzed (number with lymph node metastasis)

High tumor budding % in node-negative vs % in node-positive cases (definition of high tumor budding)

Depth of submucosal invasion % in node-negative vs % in node-positive cases

Unfavorable histological grade % in node-negative vs % in node-positive cases (features considered unfavorable)

Lymphatic invasion % in node-negative vs % in node-positive cases

Ueno et al8

251 (33)

10 vs 49% (P<0.0001; ⩾5 per 0.75 mm2)

Using ⩾2000 μm 52 vs 91% (P<0.0001)

24 vs 70% (P<0.0001; high-grade, mucinous)

24 vs 70% (P<0.0001)

Nakadoi et al9

499 (41)

8.3 vs 36.6% (P<0.0001; ⩾5 per × 20 objective)

Using ⩾1800 μm 48 vs 83% (P<0.0001)

3 vs 15% (P=0.00016; high-grade, mucinous)

42 vs 75% (P=0.00011)

Tateishi et al11

322 (46)

28 vs 61% (P<0.01; ⩾5 per 0.75mm2)

Using ⩾1000 μm 88 vs 98% (P=0.05)

19 vs 50% (P<0.01; moderate and poorly differentiated)

18.5 vs 54.3% (P<0.01)

Kawachi et al4

806 (97)

25 vs 60.8% (P<0.0001; ⩾5 per 0.95mm2)

Using ⩾1000 μm 76 vs 96% (P<0.0001)

2 vs 6% (P=0.01; high-grade, mucinous)

30 vs 52% (P<0.0001)

Oka et al7

118 (13) rectal only

11 vs 54% (P=0.0006; ⩾5 per × 20 objective)

Using ⩾1000 μm 73 vs 92% (P=0.18)

1.9 vs 7.7% (P=0.30; high-grade, mucinous)

53 vs 62% (P=0.42)

Ueno et al (30 hospital consortium)12

3556 (393)

14 vs 37% (P<0.0001; ⩾5 per 20X objective)

Using ⩾1000 μm 84 vs 95% (P<0.0001)

1.1 vs 7.6% (P<0.0001; high-grade, mucinous)

35 vs 69% (P<0.0001)

Pai et al 2016 (current study)

116 (28)

19 vs 57% (P=0<0.001; ⩾5 per 0.95 mm2)

Using ⩾1000 μm 60 vs 81% (P=0.04)

6 vs 18% (P=0.04; high-grade)

14 vs 39% (P=0.003)

Back to article page