Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Next Article in Journal
Demirjian’s and Cameriere’s Methods for the Assessment of Dental Age Estimation in Children from a Southern Brazilian City
Next Article in Special Issue
A Case of Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma That Contributes to Accompanying Vessels of Various Size
Previous Article in Journal
Expert Consensus Document: An Algorithm for the Care and Treatment of Patients with Constipation Based on Ultrasonographic Findings in the Rectum
Previous Article in Special Issue
Combining Molecular and Traditional Prognostic Factors: A Holistic Approach to Breast Cancer Prognostication
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Markers of Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition and Mucinous Histology Are Significant Predictors of Disease Severity and Tumor Characteristics in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer

by
Aleksandra Djikic Rom
1,*,
Sandra Dragicevic
2,
Radmila Jankovic
3,
Sanja Radojevic Skodric
3,
Predrag Sabljak
4,5,
Velimir Markovic
4,5,
Jovana Rosic Stojkovic
4,
Goran Barisic
4,5 and
Aleksandra Nikolic
2
1
Department of Pathology, Pathohistology and Medical Cytology, University Clinical Center of Serbia, Pasterova 2, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2
Gene Regulation in Cancer Group, Institute of Molecular Genetics and Genetic Engineering, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
3
Institute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
4
Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
5
Clinic for Digestive Surgery—First Surgical Clinic, University Clinical Center of Serbia, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2024, 14(14), 1512; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141512
Submission received: 17 June 2024 / Revised: 8 July 2024 / Accepted: 11 July 2024 / Published: 13 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers—2nd Edition)

Abstract

:
Approximately 20% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are diagnosed with a mucinous subtype of this tumor, have a worse prognosis, and often show resistance to available therapies. Molecules from the mucin family are involved in the regulation of epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), which significantly determines the cancer aggressiveness. This study aimed to examine the diagnostic and prognostic significance of mucinous histology and EMT markers in patients with early-onset CRC and their association with disease severity and tumor characteristics. This study included tumor tissue samples from 106 patients diagnosed with CRC before the age of 45, 53 with mucinous and 53 with non-mucinous tumors. The EMT status was determined by immunohistochemical analysis of E-cadherin and Vimentin in tissue sections. Mucinous tumors had significantly higher Mucin-1 (p < 0.001) and cytoplasmic E-cadherin (p = 0.043) scores; they were significantly less differentiated (p = 0.007), more advanced (p = 0.027), and predominately affected right the colon (p = 0.039) compared to non-mucinous tumors. Epithelial tumors were significantly better differentiated (p = 0.034) and with less prominent tumor budding (p < 0.001) than mesenchymal tumors. Mucin-1 and Vimentin were independent predictors of tumor differentiation (p = 0.006) and budding (p = 0.001), respectively. Mucinous histology and EMT markers are significant predictors of disease severity and tumor characteristics in early-onset colorectal cancer.

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world, including both sexes, and the second most common cause of cancer death according to the GLOBOCAN data [1]. The number of patients with this cancer is constantly increasing, especially in the population younger than 50 years [2]. At the time of diagnosis, the median age of patients with colon cancer is 68 years in men and 72 years in women, and the median age in patients with rectal cancer is 63 years for both sexes. According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (SEER) database in the United States, about 5% of all cases of CRC are diagnosed in patients under 45 years of age [2]. A concerning increase in CRC incidence among younger individuals has resulted in altered recommendations for screening, and contemporary guidelines indicate 45 years as the age cutoff for early-onset disease [3,4,5].
Sporadic early-onset CRC is much more common than the hereditary subtype, and recent reports suggest that its molecular properties are different from late-onset tumors [6,7]. Early-onset disease is more often characterized by aggressive tumor histology, more distal tumor localization (descending, sigmoid colon, and rectum), mucinous histology or signet ring cell histology, advanced and metastatic stage of the disease, higher tumor grade, higher rate of perineural invasion, and a positive resection margin [8,9,10].
Mucinous histology of the tumor observed in 10–20% of CRC patients is characterized by an abundance of extracellular mucin component that accounts for at least 50% of the tumor volume [11,12]. In terms of clinical pathology, this CRC subtype is significantly more common in the proximal colon than in the rectum or distal colon, shows an increased lymph node infiltration and peritoneal implants, is larger at the time of diagnosis, and is more commonly diagnosed in younger women [11]. It is most often diagnosed at an advanced stage, has worse prognosis, and often shows resistance to available therapies, subsequently leading to lower overall survival compared to non-mucinous CRC [11,12]. However, the prognostic value of mucinous histology still remains uncertain.
The process of epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) is essential for embryonal development, but it also occurs during the development of epithelial tumors, causing cellular transmigration that eventually leads to metastasis. E-cadherin and Vimentin are widely regarded as key markers for EMT [13,14]. E-cadherin, typically expressed in epithelial cells, is a hallmark of the epithelial phenotype, and its loss is associated with EMT [14]. On the other hand, Vimentin is a mesenchymal marker, and its expression is indicative of the mesenchymal phenotype, which cells acquire during EMT [14,15]. In general, EMT is characterized by the decrease in the function of epithelial markers such as E-cadherin, which plays an important role in epithelial cell adhesion and tissue architecture, and an increase in the expression of mesenchymal markers such as Vimentin, which is important for maintaining cell shape and integrity [13]. Loss of E-cadherin leads to a loss of epithelial differentiation and the acquisition of motility and an invasiveness phenotype, and its loss is associated with progression and poor prognosis of CRC, tumor invasiveness, metastases, and increased resistance to apoptosis. The EMT process is mediated and orchestrated by various transcription modulators and a number of signaling intermediates, including mucins that play a significant role in the process of cell differentiation and are associated with the aggressive behavior of metastatic tumor cells [16,17].
The members of the mucin family of glycoproteins are secreted by epithelial cells and form extracellular mucinous gel in human tissues. Mucin-1 is aberrantly overexpressed in CRC, participates in the regulation of the metabolic program, activates antiapoptotic proteins, and induces drug resistance. These observations identify Mucin-1 as an attractive marker for CRC diagnosis, immunotherapy, and prognosis. Since CRC patients with high Mucin-1 expression in tumor tissue have a higher risk of metastasis, the level of Mucin-1 expression is important in guiding treatment plans, so determining Mucin-1 expression in CRC by immunohistochemical methods may be important for determining treatment strategies in a clinical setting [17,18]. Mucin-1 can induce the expression of multiple growth factors in the survival and proliferation of tumor cells and the production of angiogenesis factors that promote the formation of new blood vessels in tumor tissues. Overexpression of Mucin-1 was associated with EMT and cell invasion [13,16,18].
The aim of this study was to examine the diagnostic and prognostic significance of mucinous histology and epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) markers in patients with early-onset CRC, as well as their association with disease severity and tumor characteristics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Subjects

This retrospective study included 106 patients who underwent surgical resection of the primary CRC at the Clinic for Digestive Surgery, University Clinical Center of Serbia, in the period from 2006 to 2020. Patients aged 18–45 years were included in the study and divided into two groups according to tumor types, determined based on extracellular mucin production: 53 patients with mucinous adenocarcinoma (mucinous component comprises more than 50% of tumor volume) and 53 patients with non-mucinous adenocarcinoma (no mucinous component in the tumor). Patients with partial mucin production (below 50%) were excluded from the study. Exclusion criteria were the presence of any type of hereditary polypoid or non-polypoid syndrome, chronic inflammatory bowel disease (ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease), any type of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and the presence of other histological, both primary and metastatic, types of carcinomas. This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethical Committee of the University Clinical Center of Serbia (Ref. No.: 175/1, Date: 27 April 2021). Informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
The following data were collected for all subjects: age, sex, tumor localization, degree of tumor differentiation, percentage of extracellular mucin tumor production, tumor classification (using histopathological criteria based on the fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification), and tumor disease stage using criteria of the TNM classification of the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer from 2017 [19]. Stages of tumor disease were also determined using Dukes and Astler-Coller systems [20,21]. Also, data on lymphovascular and perineural invasion, as well as tumor residual status, were collected for all patients.

2.2. Immunohistochemical Analysis

The immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis of E-cadherin, Vimentin, Mucin-1, and pancytokeratin was performed on five tissue sections from a single paraffin block for each subject included in the study. Pancytokeratin was used for better visualization of cancer cells and more precise determination of the tumor budding degree. Tissue sections for IHC staining were cut successively to a thickness of 4 µm on Superfrost Plus plates (Thermo Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA). The process of deparaffinization and rehydration of tissue sections was performed in accordance with standard procedure [22]. Pretreatment for vimentin and pancytokeratin was performed in Target Retrieval Solution, High Ph (50×), while for E-cadherin and Mucin-1, it was performed in Target Retrieval Solution, Low Ph (50×), brand EnVision FLEX in PTLink (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark). After pretreatment, automatic staining was performed for Vimentin (monoclonal mouse antibody NCL-L-VIMENTIN; dilution 1:400) and pancytokeratin (monoclonal mouse antibody AE1/AE3; DAKO; dilution 1:100) in AUTOSTAINER LINK48 (Dako, Glostrup, Denmark), while for Mucin-1 (monoclonal mouse antibody MRQ-17, Cell Marque; dilution 1:100), automatic staining was performed in AUTOSTEINER 360 (Thermo Scientific). Automatic staining was performed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. After staining, contrast staining was performed on all sections with the help of Mayer’s hematoxylin. The detection system for vimentin and pancytokeratin was performed using EnVision FLEX, and for Mucin-1 using Mouse/Rabbit PolyDetector Plus; Bio SB. After pretreatment, staining with E-cadherin was performed manually using a monoclonal mouse antibody (SPM471; SANTA CRUZ; sc56527; dilution 1:50). The detection was performed using Mouse/Rabbit PolyDetector Plus; Bio SB. Evaluation of IHC staining was performed using a standard Leica DM1000 light microscope. After selection, the representative fields were photographed using a Leica ICC50E camera, and the QuPath free software, version 0.2.3. (QuPath developers, The University of Edinburgh, Scotland) was used for counting. The status of the EMT process was determined based on the combined analysis of E-cadherin and Vimentin expression. Tumors positive for E-cadherin and/or negative for Vimentin were considered epithelial, while tumors negative for E-cadherin and/or positive for Vimentin were classified as mesenchymal.

2.3. Evaluation of E-Cadherin Expression

For evaluation of E-cadherin expression, the entire cross-section at ×4 and ×10 lens magnification was first examined to find the infiltrative zone of tumor spread that was the only one to be assessed at ×40 lens magnification by observing at least 100 cancer cells. Both membrane and cytoplasmic staining were evaluated. For the cell membrane, a four-level scale was used: (1) +++ for continuous staining of the membrane with the creation of a honeycomb-shaped pattern; (2) ++ for continuous staining present in 40–90% of membranes; (3) + for continuous staining present in 10–39% of membranes; (4)—for staining in <10% membranes. Cytoplasmic staining was also classified into four categories: (1) 0 for no noticeable staining; (2) 1 for weak but still noticeable staining; (3) 2 for moderate, obviously positive, but still weak staining; (4) 3 for strong, intense staining. The membrane (MI) and cytoplasmis (CI) staining indexes were calculated based on the intensity of membrane or cytoplasmic staining, and the proportion of positively stained cancer cells taken into account, using the following formula, I = 0 × f0 + 1 × f1 + 2 × f2 + 3 × f3, where I is the staining index, with f0–f3 cell fractions showing a defined level of staining intensity (0 to 3). Theoretically, the staining index is in a range between 0 and 3 [23,24]. Values of staining index greater than 0.5 were considered positive.

2.4. Evaluation of Vimentin Expression

Vimentin expression in cancer cells was first assessed by examining the cross-section as a whole under low-power magnification (lens ×4) and then confirmed by high-power magnification (lens ×20 and ×40). At least ten visual fields were observed, predominantly in the region of the tumor-invasive front, in parallel with the same visual fields used for E-cadherin staining. The immunoreactivity scoring system was applied according to the following two criteria: (1) the proportion of positively stained cells: 0 for 0%, 1 for ≤1%, 2 for 1–10%, 3 for 11–33%, 4 for 34–66% and 5 for 67–100%; and (2) color intensity: 0 for colorless, 1 for pale, 2 for yellow, 3 for brown. The overall Vimentin score was calculated according to the modified Allerd scoring system by summing the two criteria into a single score: 0–1 negative, 2–3 weak positivity, 4–6 moderate positivity, 7–8 strong positivity [13,25].

2.5. Evaluation of Mucin-1 Expression

For evaluation of Mucin-1 expression, the selected sections were first examined in full at ×4 and ×10 lens magnification, and since very heterogeneous antibody expression occurs at individual sections, 10 HPF visual fields were used, and counting was performed using ×40 lens magnification [26]. The immunostaining intensity of individual cells was evaluated on a scale from 0 (no staining) to +4 (strongest intensity). In addition, the percentage of stained cells for each of the intensities was determined. The percentage of cells at each intensity was multiplied by the appropriate intensity value to obtain an immunohistochemical score ranging from 0 to 4. The value of the score ≥0.5 or at least 25% of tumor cells was considered positive expression [27]. For the samples with positive expression, the degree of positivity was determined: 0 for no positive cells, 1 for less than 5%, 2 for 5–29%, 3 for 30–59%, and 4 for more than 60% of positive cells [28].

2.6. Pancytokeratin Staining and Tumor Budding Evaluation

Pancytokeratin immunostaining was performed to facilitate identification of cancer cells and tumor budding evaluation. Pancytokeratin staining was scored as follows: 0 for no staining; 1 for less than 5% of tumor cells; 2 for 5–25% of tumor cells; 3 for 25–50% of tumor cells; 4 for more than 50% of tumor cells [29]. To determine the degree of tumor budding, the H&E-stained section with the largest degree of buds was selected; then, a hot spot was identified on the ×10 lens. The buds were counted in the selected hot spot at ×20 lens, and tumor budding was scored using a three-step system proposed by the International Consensus Conference on Tumor Budding (ITBCC), as used by the Japan Colon Cancer Association and Rectum: 0–4 buds—low tumor budding (Bd1); 5–9 buds—moderate tumor budding (Bd2); 10 or more buds—high tumor budding (Bd3) [30].

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables and percentages for categorical variables. The normality of continuous data and homogeneity of variance were tested by one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and Levene’s test, respectively. Differences between groups for categorical data were analyzed by Fisher’s Exact test and Pearson’s Chi-squared test, while for continuous data, Independent Samples Mann–Whitney U test was used. Logistic regression was performed to analyze the impact of each independent variable on the likelihood of an event of interest. Curves of probabilities for overall survival (OS) were constructed using the Kaplan–Meier product-limit method; the median of survival analysis with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for description, and the log-rank test was utilized for testing differences between curves. p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

The expressions of epithelial marker E-cadherin and mesenchymal marker Vimentin were analyzed in tumor tissue of 106 patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed before the age of 45 years. The patients were recruited for two groups according to the tumor histology—mucinous (53 patients) and non-mucinous (53 patients). The tissue sections were selected to contain the invasive tumor front, and the E-cadherin and Vimentin score were determined (Figure 1). In addition to the total E-cadherin score, membrane and cytoplasmic scores were also analyzed. The clinical and pathological characteristics of patients and scores for analyzed EMT markers are shown in Table 1.
Mucinous tumors were significantly less differentiated than non-mucinous tumors (p = 0.007), and they were characterized by a significantly more advanced stage (p = 0.027). Also, mucinous tumors affected the right colon significantly more frequently than other tumor locations (p = 0.039). Lower average expression of E-cadherin and higher average expression of Vimentin were detected in non-mucinous vs. mucinous tumors. In comparison to non-mucinous, mucinous tumors had a significantly higher cytoplasmic E-cadherin score (p = 0.043). Total and membrane E-cadherin scores were also higher in patients with mucinous tumors, although without statistical significance. More non-mucinous tumors were vimentin-positive tumors than mucinous (22.6% vs.16.9%), and the average Vimentin score was higher in non-mucinous vs. mucinous tumors (0.85 ± 1.73 vs. 0.62 ± 1.47).
The EMT status was determined by analyzing both E-cadherin and Vimentin expression. Tumors expressing E-cadherin and/or lacking Vimentin were classified as epithelial, whereas tumors lacking E-cadherin and/or expressing Vimentin were classified as mesenchymal (Figure 2). When patients with epithelial and mesenchymal tumors were compared, regardless of the mucinous histology, patients with mesenchymal tumors were 1.6 years younger, and there were 9.4% more women among them (Table 2). No significant difference in the Mucin-1 score was observed between epithelial and mesenchymal tumors. Epithelial tumors were significantly better differentiated than mesenchymal tumors (p = 0.034). Patients with mesenchymal tumors had significantly more prominent tumor budding (p < 0.001).
Binomial and ordinal logistic regressions (adjusted for age and sex) were performed to evaluate the impact of Mucin-1, E-cadherin, and Vimentin on mucinous histology and disease severity. The results indicated Mucin-1 as an independent predictor of tumor differentiation (odds ratio of 3.312, 95% CI [1.418–7.737]; p = 0.006). Tumors with increased cytoplasmatic E-cadherin expression are 2.982-times more likely to have mucinous histology (95% CI [1.130–7.868]; p = 0.027), while the increase in cytoplasmatic the E-cadherin score was negatively associated with tumor grade (odds ratio of 0.228, 95% CI [0.072–0.722]; p = 0.012). Vimentin was identified as an independent predictor of tumor budding (odds ratio of 2.738, 95% CI [1.519–4.934]; p = 0.001).
We tested if there was a significant difference in overall survival between patients with mucinous and non-mucinous tumors, epithelial and mesenchymal tumor types, as well as between positive and negative tumors for Mucin-1, membrane E-cadherin, cytoplasmatic E-cadherin, and Vimentin, and found no statistically significant differences in survival distributions for any of the investigated groups. We also performed a survival analysis for all collected patients’ demographics and clinical and pathological characteristics (as seen in Table 1) separately in the complete patients’ group and mucinous and non-mucinous groups. We found significant differences in survival time between the patients younger and older than 40 years of age in the non-mucinous group (p = 0.026), based on the Dukes’ classification for mucinous and non-mucinous groups (p = 0.001 for both), based on the T stage for mucinous tumors (p = 0.022), N stage for a non-mucinous group (p = 0.033), and between the Mx and M1a-c stages for all patients (p = 0.001) (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

The expression of EMT markers, E-cadherin, and Vimentin, along with the expression of Mucin-1 were analyzed in a cohort of patients with early-onset CRC in order to explore the role of EMT in mucinous histology. Up to date, the vast majority of studies dealing with EMT in cancer focused either on its role in metastatic disease, its potential as a prognostic factor in primary tumors, or its association with other relevant cellular processes, such as fibrosis [31]. In spite of its importance for clinical management, the potential significance of EMT in specific histological subtypes of malignant disease was neglected. Although mucins have been demonstrated to be involved in the EMT process and also in the enrichment of the cancer stem cell population in different cancer types [32], only a handful of recent studies investigated the EMT in mucinous histology [33,34,35].
This study was conducted in patients with early-onset disease, which represents a specific subset of CRC, characterized by a predominance of mucinous tumors [36]. This subset of patients was shown to harbor genetic and non-genetic determinants of risk for CRC, and these individuals would highly benefit from preventive measures [37,38].The total number of patients enrolled in this study is relatively small due to the age cutoff value and other inclusion criteria. However, the exclusion of patients older than 45 years, those with familial forms of cancer, ulcerative colitis or partial mucin production (below 50%), and those who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was expected to result in better patient stratification. Although our study was limited to tissue samples and did not characterize the underlying molecular mechanism of EMT in vitro, the expression of EMT markers in tumor tissue was studied in the invasive tumor front, since EMT occurs in this region when cancer cells come into contact with stromal cells, as well as various signaling molecules and stromal cell derivatives [39,40,41].
Considering the observed heterotopic expression of E-cadherin, we determined both the expression of membrane (MI) and cytoplasmic (CI) expression of E-cadherin. Patients with mucinous-type early-onset CRC had a statistically significantly higher E-cadherin CI, compared to patients with non-mucinous tumor histology. Total and MI scores for E-cadherin were also higher in mucinous compared to non-mucinous tumors but without statistical significance. Previous studies have shown that the aberrant expression of cytoplasmic E-cadherin may reflect an increased likelihood of metastasis [24]. Cytoplasmic E-cadherin expression in primary tumors was significantly higher in patients with recurrence during their follow-up, compared to those who did not have relapses, while it was lower in those who did not have primary metastases and in those who did not develop disease recurrences over time [24]. These findings suggest that cytoplasmic (aberrant) expression of E-cadherin reflects the unfavorable biological behavior of CRC [24]. Our study showed that in the group of mucinous CRC, a higher cytoplasmic (aberrant) expression of E-cadherin coincided with later tumor stage (28.2% vs. 5.7% stage IV), which also correlates with previous research [24].
The group of non-mucinous early-onset CRC patients had more Vimentin-positive patients and a higher vimentin score than the group with mucinous histology. Many studies showed that as cancer progresses, Vimentin expression increases, while E-cadherin expression decreases [13,42,43,44]. Colon epithelial cells normally show strong membrane expression of E-cadherin, which reflects the normal localization of this intercellular adhesive molecule [24]. When the expression of epithelial markers decreases and the expression of mesenchymal markers increases, the cells tend to separate from their place of origin. The process of EMT is associated with primary tumor growth, regional lymph node infiltration, vascular invasion, cancer grade and stage progression, tumor invasiveness, cancer progression to metastatic stage, and overall poor prognosis [13,45,46]. Although our study did not show a statistically significant difference in the overall survival in patients with increased cytoplasmic expression of E-cadherin, previous research showed an association between this aberrant expression in the invasive margin and adverse overall survival time in CRC [24,47]. Similarly, the Vimentin score was not significantly associated with overall survival in the present study, while previous research showed that an elevated expression of Vimentin can serve as a novel biomarker for worse prognosis and poor overall survival in CRC [16].
As expected, Mucin-1 expression was statistically higher in mucinous compared to non-mucinous tumors. Increased Mucin-1 expression was previously found to be a predictor of poor prognosis and overall survival in CRC, as it correlated with higher TNM stage, depth of invasion, lymph node, and distant metastases [18,48]. These findings suggest that Mucin-1 expression is a promising prognostic factor for CRC and may serve as a valuable biomarker for identifying the metastatic potential of the disease, but it may also be a promising target for future immunotherapy with the idea of reducing the risk of metastasis and increasing survival in patients with CRC [49,50].
Analysis of clinical and pathological data in our study indicates that early-onset disease, regardless of histology, is overrepresented in men, which correlates with other studies [10,51,52]. As expected, non-mucinous tumors had a lower grade than mucinous (94.3% vs. 73.6%) [53,54]. In the mucinous tumor group, there were more tumors of the right colon, while non-mucinous tumors were predominantly located in the left colon and rectum, as confirmed by other studies [8,55,56]. Additionally, hereditary mucinous forms are more frequently localized in the right colon in comparison to sporadic mucinous forms [57]. Lymphatic and vascular invasion was somewhat more pronounced in mesenchymal vs. epithelial tumors, and these tumors were of a higher Dukes stage at the time of diagnosis but without statistical significance.
Epithelial tumors were significantly better differentiated compared to mesenchymal (p = 0.034), which correlates with the finding that the preservation of E-cadherin correlates with better tumor differentiation [58]. Patients with mesenchymal tumors were 1.6 years younger, and there were 9.4% more women in this group in comparison to epithelial tumors. Patients with mesenchymal tumors had a statistically significantly more prominent tumor budding (p < 0.001), which correlates with recent studies that reveal the connection of tumor budding and EMT [59]. A loss or decreased expression of E-cadherin seen in tumor buds was also observed in our samples, which is consistent with previous reports [60,61]. Reduced expression or partial presence of E-cadherin on the membrane and heterotopic expression (alteration of membrane to cytoplasmic expression) was also observed in tumor buds, as in other studies [59,62].

5. Conclusions

Mucinous tumors had a significantly higher cytoplasmic E-cadherin score; they were significantly less differentiated, more advanced, and affected the right colon more frequently than other tumor locations in comparison to non-mucinous tumors. Epithelial tumors were significantly better differentiated and with less prominent tumor budding than mesenchymal tumors. The process of EMT appears to be more prominent in tumors in younger patients, regardless of mucinous histology. EMT status and especially cytoplasmic E-cadherin expression may represent useful tools for patient stratification and choice of therapy in early-onset CRC. This pilot study indicates some peculiarities in the status of EMT markers in younger CRC patients, and further studies are needed to reveal the underlying molecular mechanism of EMT in early-onset CRC.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.B. and A.N.; methodology, A.D.R., R.J., P.S., V.M. and G.B.; formal analysis, A.D.R., S.D., R.J., S.R.S., J.R.S. and A.N.; investigation, A.D.R., S.D., R.J. and S.R.S.; data curation, A.D.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.D.R., S.D. and A.N.; writing—review and editing, A.D.R., S.D., R.J., S.R.S., P.S., V.M., J.R.S., G.B. and A.N.; visualization, A.D.R. and J.R.S.; supervision, P.S., V.M., G.B. and A.N.; funding acquisition, P.S., V.M. and G.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Strategic Project of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts—Molecular basis of response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer (MOHERATEKA), F-69 and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia, grant number 451-03-47/2023-01/200110.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethical Committee of the University Clinical Center of Serbia (Ref. No.: 175/1, Date: 27 April 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting reported results can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bray, F.; Laversanne, M.; Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2022: Globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2024, 74, 229–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mauri, G.; Sartore-Bianchi, A.; Russo, A.G.; Marsoni, S.; Bardelli, A.; Siena, S. Early-onset colorectal cancer in young individuals. Mol. Oncol. 2019, 13, 109–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Haghighat, S.; Sussman, D.A.; Deshpande, A. US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement on Screening for Colorectal Cancer. JAMA 2021, 326, 1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wolf, A.M.D.; Fontham, E.T.H.; Church, T.R.; Flowers, C.R.; Guerra, C.E.; LaMonte, S.J.; Etzioni, R.; McKenna, M.T.; Oeffinger, K.C.; Shih, Y.T.; et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 250–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Gupta, S.; Bharti, B.; Ahnen, D.J.; Buchanan, D.D.; Cheng, I.C.; Cotterchio, M.; Figueiredo, J.C.; Gallinger, S.J.; Haile, R.W.; Jenkins, M.A.; et al. Potential impact of family history-based screening guidelines on the detection of early-onset colorectal cancer. Cancer 2020, 126, 3013–3020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Stigliano, V.; Sanchez-Mete, L.; Martayan, A.; Anti, M. Early-onset colorectal cancer: A sporadic or inherited disease? World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 12420–12430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Cavestro, G.M.; Mannucci, A.; Zuppardo, R.A.; Di Leo, M.; Stoffel, E.; Tonon, G. Early onset sporadic colorectal cancer: Worrisome trends and oncogenic features. Dig. Liver Dis. 2018, 50, 521–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Willauer, A.N.; Liu, Y.; Pereira, A.A.L.; Lam, M.; Morris, J.S.; Raghav, K.P.S.; Morris, V.K.; Menter, D.; Broaddus, R.; Meric-Bernstam, F.; et al. Clinical and molecular characterization of early-onset colorectal cancer. Cancer 2019, 125, 2002–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Weinberg, B.A.; Marshall, J.L. Colon Cancer in Young Adults: Trends and Their Implications. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2019, 21, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yeo, H.; Betel, D.; Abelson, J.S.; Zheng, X.E.; Yantiss, R.; Shah, M.A. Early-onset Colorectal Cancer is Distinct From Traditional Colorectal Cancer. Clin. Color. Cancer 2017, 16, 293–299.e296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Luo, C.; Cen, S.; Ding, G.; Wu, W. Mucinous colorectal adenocarcinoma: Clinical pathology and treatment options. Cancer Commun. 2019, 39, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Dai, D.; Zhou, B.; Zhong, Y.; Jin, H.; Wang, X. Survival of patients with resected primary colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma: A competing risk nomogram analysis. Oncol. Lett. 2019, 18, 6594–6604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Niknami, Z.; Muhammadnejad, A.; Ebrahimi, A.; Harsani, Z.; Shirkoohi, R. Significance of E-cadherin and Vimentin as epithelial-mesenchymal transition markers in colorectal carcinoma prognosis. Excli J. 2020, 19, 917–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Brown, M.S.; Muller, K.E.; Pattabiraman, D.R. Quantifying the Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) from Bench to Bedside. Cancers 2022, 14, 1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Usman, S.; Waseem, N.H.; Nguyen, T.K.N.; Mohsin, S.; Jamal, A.; Teh, M.T.; Waseem, A. Vimentin Is at the Heart of Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) Mediated Metastasis. Cancers 2021, 13, 4985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ponnusamy, M.P.; Seshacharyulu, P.; Lakshmanan, I.; Vaz, A.P.; Chugh, S.; Batra, S.K. Emerging role of mucins in epithelial to mesenchymal transition. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 2013, 13, 945–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Guo, M.; You, C.; Dou, J. Role of transmembrane glycoprotein mucin 1 (MUC1) in various types of colorectal cancer and therapies: Current research status and updates. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2018, 107, 1318–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Li, C.; Liu, T.; Yin, L.; Zuo, D.; Lin, Y.; Wang, L. Prognostic and clinicopathological value of MUC1 expression in colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Medecine 2019, 98, e14659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Amin, M.B.; Edge, S.B.; Greene, F.L.; Byrd, D.R.; Brookland, R.K.; Washington, M.K.; Gershenwald, J.E.; Compton, C.C.; Hess, K.R.; Sullivan, D.C.; et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed.; Springer: Greer, SC, USA, 2017; Volume 1024. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mori, T. A comparison of the new (planned) TNM classification and Japanese general rule for staging colorectal cancer. Cancer Investig. 2010, 28, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Banias, L.; Jung, I.; Chiciudean, R.; Gurzu, S. From Dukes-MAC Staging System to Molecular Classification: Evolving Concepts in Colorectal Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 9455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wick, M.R. The hematoxylin and eosin stain in anatomic pathology-An often-neglected focus of quality assurance in the laboratory. Semin. Diagn. Pathol. 2019, 36, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Elzagheid, A.; Kuopio, T.; Ilmen, M.; Collan, Y. Prognostication of invasive ductal breast cancer by quantification of E-cadherin immunostaining: The methodology and clinical relevance. Histopathology 2002, 41, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Elzagheid, A.; Algars, A.; Bendardaf, R.; Lamlum, H.; Ristamaki, R.; Collan, Y.; Syrjanen, K.; Pyrhonen, S. E-cadherin expression pattern in primary colorectal carcinomas and their metastases reflects disease outcome. World J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 12, 4304–4309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Toiyama, Y.; Yasuda, H.; Saigusa, S.; Tanaka, K.; Inoue, Y.; Goel, A.; Kusunoki, M. Increased expression of Slug and Vimentin as novel predictive biomarkers for lymph node metastasis and poor prognosis in colorectal cancer. Carcinogenesis 2013, 34, 2548–2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kasprzak, A.; Siodła, E.; Andrzejewska, M.; Szmeja, J.; Seraszek-Jaros, A.; Cofta, S.; Szaflarski, W. Differential expression of mucin 1 and mucin 2 in colorectal cancer. World J. Gastroenterol. 2018, 24, 4164–4177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Manne, U.; Weiss, H.L.; Grizzle, W.E. Racial differences in the prognostic usefulness of MUC1 and MUC2 in colorectal adenocarcinomas. Clin. Cancer Res. 2000, 6, 4017–4025. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Duncan, T.J.; Watson, N.F.; Al-Attar, A.H.; Scholefield, J.H.; Durrant, L.G. The role of MUC1 and MUC3 in the biology and prognosis of colorectal cancer. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2007, 5, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yamagishi, H.; Imai, Y.; Okamura, T.; Fukuda, K.; Ono, Y.; Ban, S.; Inoue, T.; Ueda, Y. Aberrant cytokeratin expression as a possible prognostic predictor in poorly differentiated colorectal carcinoma. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013, 28, 1815–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lugli, A.; Kirsch, R.; Ajioka, Y.; Bosman, F.; Cathomas, G.; Dawson, H.; El Zimaity, H.; Fléjou, J.F.; Hansen, T.P.; Hartmann, A.; et al. Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016. Mod. Pathol. 2017, 30, 1299–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yang, J.; Antin, P.; Berx, G.; Blanpain, C.; Brabletz, T.; Bronner, M.; Campbell, K.; Cano, A.; Casanova, J.; Christofori, G.; et al. Guidelines and definitions for research on epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2020, 21, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marimuthu, S.; Rauth, S.; Ganguly, K.; Zhang, C.; Lakshmanan, I.; Batra, S.K.; Ponnusamy, M.P. Mucins reprogram stemness, metabolism and promote chemoresistance during cancer progression. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2021, 40, 575–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gurzu, S.; Bara, T.; Molnar, C.; Butiurca, V.; Beres, H.; Savoji, S.; Jung, I. The epithelial-mesenchymal transition induces aggressivity of mucinous cystic neoplasm of the pancreas with neuroendocrine component: An immunohistochemistry study. Pathol. Res. Pract. 2019, 215, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sugimoto, R.; Uesugi, N.; Yamada, N.; Osakabe, M.; Fujita, Y.; Eizuka, M.; Kato, R.; Ishida, K.; Obara, W.; Nagashima, Y.; et al. Sarcomatoid change associated with epithelial-mesenchymal transition in mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma of the kidney: A case report. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2019, 12, 2767–2771. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Bhuyan, G.; Arora, R.; Ahluwalia, C.; Sharma, P. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in serous and mucinous epithelial tumors of the ovary. J. Cancer Res. Ther. 2019, 15, 1309–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Silla, I.O.; Rueda, D.; Rodríguez, Y.; García, J.L.; de la Cruz Vigo, F.; Perea, J. Early-onset colorectal cancer: A separate subset of colorectal cancer. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 17288–17296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Archambault, A.N.; Su, Y.R.; Jeon, J.; Thomas, M.; Lin, Y.; Conti, D.V.; Win, A.K.; Sakoda, L.C.; Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I.; Peterse, E.F.P.; et al. Cumulative Burden of Colorectal Cancer-Associated Genetic Variants Is More Strongly Associated With Early-Onset vs Late-Onset Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020, 158, 1274–1286.e1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Archambault, A.N.; Lin, Y.; Jeon, J.; Harrison, T.A.; Bishop, D.T.; Brenner, H.; Casey, G.; Chan, A.T.; Chang-Claude, J.; Figueiredo, J.C.; et al. Nongenetic Determinants of Risk for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2021, 5, pkab029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Brabletz, T.; Jung, A.; Reu, S.; Porzner, M.; Hlubek, F.; Kunz-Schughart, L.A.; Knuechel, R.; Kirchner, T. Variable beta-catenin expression in colorectal cancers indicates tumor progression driven by the tumor environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 10356–10361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Rosivatz, E.; Becker, I.; Bamba, M.; Schott, C.; Diebold, J.; Mayr, D.; Höfler, H.; Becker, K.F. Neoexpression of N-cadherin in E-cadherin positive colon cancers. Int. J. Cancer 2004, 111, 711–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ye, X.; Weinberg, R.A. Epithelial-Mesenchymal Plasticity: A Central Regulator of Cancer Progression. Trends Cell Biol. 2015, 25, 675–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tsanou, E.; Peschos, D.; Batistatou, A.; Charalabopoulos, A.; Charalabopoulos, K. The E-cadherin adhesion molecule and colorectal cancer. A global literature approach. Anticancer. Res. 2008, 28, 3815–3826. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Bruun, J.; Kolberg, M.; Nesland, J.M.; Svindland, A.; Nesbakken, A.; Lothe, R.A. Prognostic Significance of β-Catenin, E-Cadherin, and SOX9 in Colorectal Cancer: Results from a Large Population-Representative Series. Front. Oncol. 2014, 4, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Hugo, H.J.; Gunasinghe, N.P.A.D.; Hollier, B.G.; Tanaka, T.; Blick, T.; Toh, A.; Hill, P.; Gilles, C.; Waltham, M.; Thompson, E.W. Epithelial requirement for in vitro proliferation and xenograft growth and metastasis of MDA-MB-468 human breast cancer cells: Oncogenic rather than tumor-suppressive role of E-cadherin. Breast Cancer Res. 2017, 19, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Satelli, A.; Li, S. Vimentin in cancer and its potential as a molecular target for cancer therapy. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2011, 68, 3033–3046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kim, S.A.; Inamura, K.; Yamauchi, M.; Nishihara, R.; Mima, K.; Sukawa, Y.; Li, T.; Yasunari, M.; Morikawa, T.; Fitzgerald, K.C.; et al. Loss of CDH1 (E-cadherin) expression is associated with infiltrative tumour growth and lymph node metastasis. Br. J. Cancer 2016, 114, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lee, S.J.; Choi, S.Y.; Kim, W.J.; Ji, M.; Lee, T.G.; Son, B.R.; Yoon, S.M.; Sung, R.; Lee, E.J.; Youn, S.J.; et al. Combined aberrant expression of E-cadherin and S100A4, but not β-catenin is associated with disease-free survival and overall survival in colorectal cancer patients. Diagn. Pathol. 2013, 8, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Zeng, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, M.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, T.; Feng, S.; Hao, M.; Shi, H. MUC1 Predicts Colorectal Cancer Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Case Controlled Studies. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0138049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Mukherjee, P.; Pathangey, L.B.; Bradley, J.B.; Tinder, T.L.; Basu, G.D.; Akporiaye, E.T.; Gendler, S.J. MUC1-specific immune therapy generates a strong anti-tumor response in a MUC1-tolerant colon cancer model. Vaccine 2007, 25, 1607–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Gao, T.; Cen, Q.; Lei, H. A review on development of MUC1-based cancer vaccine. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020, 132, 110888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abualkhair, W.H.; Zhou, M.; Ahnen, D.; Yu, Q.; Wu, X.C.; Karlitz, J.J. Trends in Incidence of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer in the United States Among Those Approaching Screening Age. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e1920407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gausman, V.; Dornblaser, D.; Anand, S.; Hayes, R.B.; O’Connell, K.; Du, M.; Liang, P.S. Risk Factors Associated With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 18, 2752–2759.e2752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Nagtegaal, I.D.; Odze, R.D.; Klimstra, D.; Paradis, V.; Rugge, M.; Schirmacher, P.; Washington, K.M.; Carneiro, F.; Cree, I.A.; Board, W.C.o.T.E. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 2020, 76, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Hu, X.; Li, Y.Q.; Li, Q.G.; Ma, Y.L.; Peng, J.J.; Cai, S. Mucinous Adenocarcinomas Histotype Can Also be a High-Risk Factor for Stage II Colorectal Cancer Patients. Cell Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 47, 630–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Yahagi, M.; Okabayashi, K.; Hasegawa, H.; Tsuruta, M.; Kitagawa, Y. The Worse Prognosis of Right-Sided Compared with Left-Sided Colon Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2016, 20, 648–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Baran, B.; Mert Ozupek, N.; Yerli Tetik, N.; Acar, E.; Bekcioglu, O.; Baskin, Y. Difference Between Left-Sided and Right-Sided Colorectal Cancer: A Focused Review of Literature. Gastroenterol. Res. 2018, 11, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Chiang, J.M.; Yeh, C.Y.; Changchien, C.R.; Chen, J.S.; Tang, R.; Chen, J.R. Mucinous adenocarcinoma showing different clinicopathological and molecular characteristics in relation to different colorectal cancer subgroups. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2010, 25, 941–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. He, X.; Chen, Z.; Jia, M.; Zhao, X. Downregulated E-cadherin expression indicates worse prognosis in Asian patients with colorectal cancer: Evidence from meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e70858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Yamada, N.; Sugai, T.; Eizuka, M.; Tsuchida, K.; Sugimoto, R.; Mue, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Osakabe, M.; Uesugi, N.; Ishida, K.; et al. Tumor budding at the invasive front of colorectal cancer may not be associated with the epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Hum. Pathol. 2017, 60, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zlobec, I.; Lugli, A. Epithelial mesenchymal transition and tumor budding in aggressive colorectal cancer: Tumor budding as oncotarget. Oncotarget 2010, 1, 651–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Galván, J.A.; Helbling, M.; Koelzer, V.H.; Tschan, M.P.; Berger, M.D.; Hädrich, M.; Schnüriger, B.; Karamitopoulou, E.; Dawson, H.; Inderbitzin, D.; et al. TWIST1 and TWIST2 promoter methylation and protein expression in tumor stroma influence the epithelial-mesenchymal transition-like tumor budding phenotype in colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 874–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bronsert, P.; Enderle-Ammour, K.; Bader, M.; Timme, S.; Kuehs, M.; Csanadi, A.; Kayser, G.; Kohler, I.; Bausch, D.; Hoeppner, J.; et al. Cancer cell invasion and EMT marker expression: A three-dimensional study of the human cancer-host interface. J. Pathol. 2014, 234, 410–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Immunohistochemical staining for epithelial–mesenchymal markers (magnification ×40). Intensity of E-cadherin cytoplasmatic and Vimentin staining (from left to right): colorless scored 0; pallide-flavens scored 1; yellow scored 2; and brown scored 3. Intensity of E-cadherin membrane staining (from left to right): intensive for continuous staining of the membrane with the creation of a honeycomb-shaped pattern; moderate for continuous staining present in 40–90% of membranes; weak for continuous staining present in 10–39% of membranes; negativefor staining in <10% membranes.
Figure 1. Immunohistochemical staining for epithelial–mesenchymal markers (magnification ×40). Intensity of E-cadherin cytoplasmatic and Vimentin staining (from left to right): colorless scored 0; pallide-flavens scored 1; yellow scored 2; and brown scored 3. Intensity of E-cadherin membrane staining (from left to right): intensive for continuous staining of the membrane with the creation of a honeycomb-shaped pattern; moderate for continuous staining present in 40–90% of membranes; weak for continuous staining present in 10–39% of membranes; negativefor staining in <10% membranes.
Diagnostics 14 01512 g001
Figure 2. Representative mesenchymal tumor within the group of mucinous tumors. (A) The black square highlights the invasive front where EMT was observed (H&E, magnification ×2.5); (B) detailed view of the invasive front (H&E, magnification ×40); (C) very pale and negative immunohistochemical staining for E-Cadherin (magnification ×40); (D) immunopositive staining for Vimentin (magnification ×40).
Figure 2. Representative mesenchymal tumor within the group of mucinous tumors. (A) The black square highlights the invasive front where EMT was observed (H&E, magnification ×2.5); (B) detailed view of the invasive front (H&E, magnification ×40); (C) very pale and negative immunohistochemical staining for E-Cadherin (magnification ×40); (D) immunopositive staining for Vimentin (magnification ×40).
Diagnostics 14 01512 g002
Figure 3. The Kaplan–Meier analysis of patients’ survival according to (A) the <40 and the >40 age groups in non-mucinous tumors; (B,C) the Dukes’ classification for mucinous and non-mucinous tumors, respectively; (D) the T stage for mucinous tumors, (E) the N stage for non-mucinous tumors, and (F) the Mx and M1a-c stages for all patients; all presented differences in overall survival are statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. The Kaplan–Meier analysis of patients’ survival according to (A) the <40 and the >40 age groups in non-mucinous tumors; (B,C) the Dukes’ classification for mucinous and non-mucinous tumors, respectively; (D) the T stage for mucinous tumors, (E) the N stage for non-mucinous tumors, and (F) the Mx and M1a-c stages for all patients; all presented differences in overall survival are statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Diagnostics 14 01512 g003
Table 1. Clinical and pathological characteristics of patients with non-mucionous and mucinous colorectal cancer.
Table 1. Clinical and pathological characteristics of patients with non-mucionous and mucinous colorectal cancer.
Non-Mucionous (n = 53)Mucinous
(n = 53)
p Value
Age, years36.9 ± 5.235.7 ± 7.20.619
Male gender, %66.066.01.000
Tumor localization, %
rectum + left colon81.160.40.039 *
right colon18.939.6
T stadium, %
T213.211.30.587
T358.550.9
T428.337.8
N stadium, %
N032.030.20.429
N130.241.5
N237.828.3
TNM stage, %
I9.43.80.027 *
IIA13.220.8
IIB3.83.8
IIC3.83.8
IIIA3.80
IIIB43.428.3
IIIC16.911.3
IVA3.89.4
IVB1.90
IVC018.8
Tumor grade, %
G1 + G294.373.60.007 *
G35.726.4
Tumor budding, %
126.437.80.450
220.818.9
352.843.3
L positive, %73.184.80.218
V positive, %51.954.20.844
Mucin-1 score2.07 ± 0.963.15 ± 0.64<0.001 *
E-cadherin score
total1.84 ± 1.462.17 ± 1.090.112
membrane0.84 ± 0.960.95 ± 0.890.206
cytoplasmatic1.00 ± 0.621.21 ± 0.420.043 *
Vimentin score0.85 ± 1.730.62 ± 1.470.473
* Statistically significant p value.
Table 2. Clinical and pathological characteristics of groups of colorectal cancer patients with epithelial and mesenchymal tumors.
Table 2. Clinical and pathological characteristics of groups of colorectal cancer patients with epithelial and mesenchymal tumors.
Epithelial
(n = 51)
Mesenchymal
(n = 55)
p Value
Age, years37.1 ± 7.235.6 ± 6.00.143
Male gender, %70.661.80.413
Tumor localization, %
rectum + left colon72.565.50.726
right colon27.534.5
T stadium, %
T215.79.10.231
T358.850.9
T425.540.0
N stadium, %
N039.223.60.091
N137.334.5
N223.541.9
TNM stage, %
I9.83.60.198
IIA21.612.7
IIB2.05.4
IIC5.81.9
IIIA2.01.9
IIIB37.234.5
IIIC7.820.0
IVA2.010.9
IVB01.9
IVC11.87.2
Tumor grade, %
G1 + G292.276.40.034 *
G37.823.6
Tumor budding, %
143.121.8<0.001 *
231.49.1
325.569.1
L positive, %73.982.70.331
V positive, %44.760.40.160
Mucin-1 score2.56 ± 0.982.64 ± 0.980.716
* Statistically significant p value.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Djikic Rom, A.; Dragicevic, S.; Jankovic, R.; Radojevic Skodric, S.; Sabljak, P.; Markovic, V.; Stojkovic, J.R.; Barisic, G.; Nikolic, A. Markers of Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition and Mucinous Histology Are Significant Predictors of Disease Severity and Tumor Characteristics in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 1512. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141512

AMA Style

Djikic Rom A, Dragicevic S, Jankovic R, Radojevic Skodric S, Sabljak P, Markovic V, Stojkovic JR, Barisic G, Nikolic A. Markers of Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition and Mucinous Histology Are Significant Predictors of Disease Severity and Tumor Characteristics in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(14):1512. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141512

Chicago/Turabian Style

Djikic Rom, Aleksandra, Sandra Dragicevic, Radmila Jankovic, Sanja Radojevic Skodric, Predrag Sabljak, Velimir Markovic, Jovana Rosic Stojkovic, Goran Barisic, and Aleksandra Nikolic. 2024. "Markers of Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition and Mucinous Histology Are Significant Predictors of Disease Severity and Tumor Characteristics in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer" Diagnostics 14, no. 14: 1512. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141512

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop