Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 38124

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : October | Volume : 17 | Issue : 10 | Page : EC01 - EC07 Full Version

Assessment of Tumour Budding in Colorectal Carcinoma and its Correlation with Pathological Staging among Patients undergoing Resection at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kerala, India


Published: October 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/63006.18546
Neha Mohan, KV Kalaranjini, Limi Mohandas

1. Senior Resident, Department of Pathology, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. 2. Professor, Department of Pathology, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Neha Mohan,
Saradagovindam, Sivagiri Road, Varkala, Trivandrum-695141, Kerala, India.
E-mail: nehamohan512@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Colorectal Carcinoma (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed carcinomas and a significant cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The prognosis and treatment decisions rely on the Tumour, Node, Metastasis (TNM) Staging system. However, some tumours are classified as low-risk based on TNM stage exhibit adverse outcomes. Therefore, the search for additional prognostic factors is necessary. Tumour budding is an established independent prognostic factor, with high-grade tumour budding consistently linked to lymph node metastasis, local recurrence, and distant metastasis.

Aim: To assess and grade tumour budding in CRC cases and examine its correlation with pathological staging.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 95 patients between December 2019 and December 2021 at Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramood, Trivandrum, India. Resected specimens from CRC patients were processed, and Haematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) slides were examined for tumour budding assessment. Ten individual fields were scanned under a 10x objective to locate the hotspot area with the maximum number of tumour buds. Tumour buds were then counted under a 40x objective in the selected hotspot area. Tumour budding was categorised as low (0-1 bud), intermediate (2-4 buds), or high (5 or more buds). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis with Pancytokeratin was carried out when assessment with H&E slides alone was difficult. The correlation between tumour budding and pathological staging was evaluated, along with its association with various histopathological parameters.

Results: The study included 95 patients, with a mean age of 68.22 years, comprising 58.95% males and 41.05% females. Low-grade tumour budding was observed in 42 (44.21%) cases, intermediate-grade budding in 34 (35.79%) cases, and high-grade tumour budding in 19 (20%) cases. There was a significant correlation between tumour budding and pathological staging (r-value=0.39) as well as the number of metastatic lymph nodes (r-value=0.34). The presence of lymph node metastasis and Lymphovascular Invasion (LVI) showed a statistically significant association (p-value <0.01).

Conclusion: Tumour budding grading is a valuable histopathological finding, as it increases with higher T stage and presence of nodal metastasis, aiding in the prediction of nodal metastasis and recurrence. It is positively correlated with pathological staging and the number of metastatic lymph nodes. Including tumour budding grade in the histopathology report can assist clinicians in assessing prognosis and making treatment decisions.

Keywords

Colorectal cancer, Pathological staging, Tumour bud grade

CRC is one of the most commonly diagnosed carcinomas and a significant cause of cancer-related deaths in the Western world (1). Despite being the most curable type of carcinoma of the gastrointestinal tract, it remains the second most common carcinoma in females after breast carcinoma and the third most common carcinoma in males after lung and prostatic carcinomas. The average age at diagnosis ranges from 60-70 years (2). In 2020, it was estimated that over 1.9 million new cases of CRC would occur, making it the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality (3). In India, the Annual Incidence Rates (AARs) for colon cancer and rectal cancer in men are 5.36 and 5.17 per 100,000, respectively. The AAR for colon cancer in women is 4.3 per 100,000. The incidence rate is higher in Thiruvananthapuram in the South region and lower in Chennai (4). The average annual Crude Rate (CR) of CRC is nine, and it ranks among the top five common cancers (CR per 105) in men (5). The crude incidence rate (CR per 105) in urban females is 10.6, while in rural regions, it is 7.7 (6).

Surgical resection is the primary treatment modality for most CRC patients. The prognosis and treatment decisions are based on the extent of the disease, as indicated by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM Staging system (7),(8). However, some tumours exhibit adverse outcomes despite being categorised as low-risk based on their TNM stage (8). Thus, there is a need to search for additional prognostic factors in CRC assessment, which has become an important area of research. Some of the most useful histopathological factors studied include the nature of the advancing front, extramural venous invasion, tumour budding, and microsatellite instability.

In CRC neoplastic cells undergoing epithelial mesenchymal transition are histologically represented by the presence of tumour buds (9). Tumour budding was first described by Imai as sprouting at the invasive front of the neoplasm, reflecting a more rapid tumour growth rate. Tumour budding is defined as the presence of single tumour cells or small clusters of upto four tumour cells at the invasive margin (10). High-grade tumour budding is associated with increased expression of protein markers related to extracellular matrix degradation and increased proliferation. Markers of cell adhesion and migration, such as E-cadherin or syndecan-1, are decreased in the centre of tumours with high-grade tumour budding, along with decreased phospho-AKT, which impacts cell survival by inhibiting apoptosis.

Recognised by the International Union against Cancer as an additional prognostic factor indicating adverse outcomes, tumour budding is now a well-established independent prognostic factor consistently linked to lymph node metastasis, local tumour recurrence, and distant metastasis. Tumour budding is considered a useful indicator of the presence of isolated neoplastic cells in lymph nodes of patients with node-negative colorectal cancers, warranting additional laparotomy in patients who have undergone local excision of T1 tumours (10). Assessing tumour budding helps enhance prognostic accuracy and enables treatment decisions. Tumours with high-grade tumour budding have a significantly lower 5-year Disease-Free Survival (DFS) rate compared to those with low-grade tumour budding. High-grade tumour budding is considered a worse prognostic factor in Stage-II colon carcinoma and is a risk factor for recurrence, influencing the consideration of adjuvant treatment (11).

Various methods of grading tumour budding have been described by Hase K et al., Ueno T et al., Nakamura T et al., and Roy P et al., (12),(13),(14),(15). The standardised method for tumour budding assessment was formulated at the International Tumour Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016, paving the way for reporting tumour budding in routine practice in the future (16). Given the increased incidence of CRC cases in Thiruvananthapuram and the role of tumour budding in predicting local recurrence and metastasis, this study aims to assess tumour budding and determine the proportion of patients with low-grade, intermediate-grade, and high-grade tumour budding. Additionally, it will evaluate its correlation with pathological staging, the number of metastatic lymph nodes, and its association with other histopathological findings such as histological type, presence of lymph node metastasis, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and pathological staging.

Material and Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Pathology at Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Trivandrum, Kerala, India, from December 2019 to December 2021. Ethical committee clearance was obtained (SGMC-IEC no: 35/479/11/2019), and consent was obtained from patients before the commencement of the study.

Inclusion criteria: A total of 95 patients with Colorectal Cancer (CRC) who underwent surgical resection were included in the study. Out of the 95 cases, 58 were from the study period, and 37 were patients who underwent surgery between January 2015 and November 2019.

Exclusion criteria: Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or underwent surgery for recurrence were excluded from the study.

Study Procedure

Resected specimens of patients with CRC were fixed in 10% formalin. Relevant clinical information was collected using proformas. Grossing of specimens was performed, and adequate sections were taken and processed. Paraffin-embedded blocks were prepared, and sections were cut at a thickness of 4 μm. The sections were stained with H&E and examined. Tumour staging was done according to AJCC criteria [7,8]. Tumour budding assessment was performed according to the proposal by Roy P et al., (15). The slide with the greatest degree of budding at the invasive front was selected first. Then, 10 individual fields were scanned under a 10x objective to find the hotspot area with the maximum tumour buds. Tumour buds (single tumour cells or clusters of upto four cells) were counted in the selected hotspot area under a 40x objective. Tumour budding grading was done as follows: low (0-1 bud), intermediate (2-4 buds), high (5 or more buds) (15).

Immunohistochemistry analysis with Pancytokeratin was performed for IHC in which there was a prominent inflammatory reaction, and 2assessment only with H&E slides was difficult. A mouse monoclonal antibody (IgG1) was used to identify cytokeratin expressed in the neoplastic cells. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) buffer was used for antigen retrieval, and sections were kept under steam pressure for 15 minutes. They were then washed with Tris-buffered Saline (TBS) and covered with the primary antibody for one hour. Later, they were treated with an amplifier and polymer detector for 12 minutes each. Diaminobenzidine (DAB) chromogen was used and kept for 10 minutes. The sections were then washed and counterstained with haematoxylin.

The hospital medical records were searched for CRC cases who underwent resection at our hospital between January 2015 and November 2019. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks and H&E-stained slides of these cases were retrieved, and all tumour sections were reviewed. Fresh cuts from blocks were made, stained, and reviewed in cases where the original stain had faded. Tumour budding grading was performed as described above. The patients were interviewed with a questionnaire to obtain information about any local recurrence or distant metastasis after the surgical procedure.

Statistical Analysis

Microsoft Office Excel was used for data handling and preparation. The data analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 software. The results were expressed as percentages. Statistical tests such as Chi-square, Spearman rank correlation, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to determine the relationship between ordinal variables and compare ordinal parameters between groups. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant for all statistical interpretations.

Results

During the study period, a total of 95 cases were included in the analysis. The majority of the participants were in the age group of 71 to 80 years (n=32, 33.68%), while the least number of cases were in the younger age group of 31 to 40 years (n=2, 2.11%). The mean age of the participants was 68.22 years. Of the total cases, 58.95% were males (n=56) and 41.05% were females (n=39). The most common presenting complaint was bleeding per rectum (n=51, 53.68%), followed by constipation (n=15, 15.79%), weight loss and abdominal pain (n=11.58%). The most frequently received surgical specimen was low anterior resection (n=52, 54.73%), followed by sigmoidectomy (n=18, 18.95%). The most common site of tumour was the rectum (n=36, 37.89%), followed by the sigmoid colon (n=26, 27.37%) and rectosigmoid (n=13, 13.69%). Histologically, the majority of the cases were adenocarcinoma (n=84, 88.42%), while 11 cases were mucinous adenocarcinoma (11.58%). Most of the tumours were moderately differentiated (n=94, 8.94%). Lymphovascular invasion was observed in 32.63% of cases (n=31), and perineural invasion was seen in 14.74% of cases (n=14). Lymph node metastasis was present in 46.32% of cases (n=44). The majority of the tumours were classified as Stage III (n=37, 38.95%), while the least number of cases were Stage IV (n=8, 8.42%). The majority of the tumours were classified as T3 stage (n=72, 75.79%) (Table/Fig 1). Tumour budding scoring was performed, with a minimum of zero buds and a maximum of 10 buds observed. Out of the 95 cases, 44.21% (n=42) showed low-grade tumour budding (Table/Fig 2)a,b, 35.79% (n=34) showed intermediate-grade budding (Table/Fig 2)c,d, and 20.00% (n=19) showed high-grade tumour budding (Table/Fig 2)e,f. IHC staining with tumour budding is shown in (Table/Fig 2)g,h. The association between histological type and tumour budding was not statistically significant (p-value=0.21) (Table/Fig 3). Lymphovascular invasion was present in 16 cases with intermediate-grade tumour budding. The association between lymphovascular invasion and tumour budding was statistically significant (p-value <0.01) (Table/Fig 4). Perineural invasion was most commonly seen in high-grade tumour budding cases (7 cases, 36.8%), and the association between perineural invasion and tumour budding was statistically significant (p-value: 0.002) (Table/Fig 5). The majority of cases were in T3 stage (72 cases), and the correlation between T stage and tumour budding was statistically significant (r-value: 0.235, p-value: 0.02) (Table/Fig 6). There was also a statistically significant correlation between the number of metastatic lymph nodes and tumour budding (r-value: 0.348, p-value: 0.001) (Table/Fig 7). The association between lymph node metastasis and tumour budding was statistically significant (p-value: <0.01), with intermediate tumour bud grade being the most common in cases with lymph node metastasis (21 cases, 47.23%) (Table/Fig 8). The most common AJCC stage was Stage III (37 cases), and the correlation between pathological staging and tumour budding was statistically significant (r-value: 0.39, p-value: 0.001) (Table/Fig 9). Out of the 37 cases who underwent surgery between 2015 and 2019 and completed at least three years of follow-up, only one case (2.7%) showed local recurrence, four cases (10.8%) showed distant metastasis, and 18 cases reported death.

Discussion

CRCs are the third most common carcinoma, accounting for 9.7% of all carcinomas. Now-a-days, the incidence of CRCs is rising in younger age groups due to modern dietary habits like increased consumption of red meat and lifestyle factors such as smoking, low physical exercise, and obesity. However, the mortality rate is low due to early detection, screening, and newer treatment modalities. Survival rates vary based on tumour behavior (17). The most important prognostic factor in CRC is the pathological stage, but patients with the same stage can behave differently in terms of local recurrence and metastasis. Therefore, additional prognostic factors must be considered. Tumour budding is an emerging and promising prognostic factor as it is believed to be the first step in the metastatic process (18). Present study assessed and graded tumour budding in CRC patients and found a statistically significant association between tumour budding and pathological staging.

Age is an important factor as the incidence of CRC is higher in older age groups and requires surveillance. The majority of CRC patients are above 50 years of age, with about 80% of colon cancer and 75% of rectal cancer patients being above 60 years of age at the time of detection (17). In present study, the majority of cases were in the age group of 71 to 80 years (33.68%), which was comparable to previous studies (19). The mean age in present study was 68.22 years. Among the participants, 56 were males and 39 were females. The majority were males (58.95%), consistent with previous research (20). Most patients presented with bleeding per rectum 51 (53.68%), followed by constipation 15 (15.79%), loss of appetite 11 (11.58%) abdominal pain 11 (11.58%), similar to other studies (21). The most common site of the tumour was the rectum 36 (37.89%), followed by the sigmoid 26 (27.37%), which aligns with previous findings (22).

The most frequent histological type was adenocarcinoma 84 (88.42%), followed by mucinous adenocarcinoma 11 (11.58%), and most tumours were moderately differentiated. These findings were similar to previous studies (23). The association between histological type and grade with tumour budding was not statistically significant (p-value: 0.21), consistent with previous research (24). Interestingly, seven cases arose from tubulovillous adenoma and three from villous adenoma, contrary to the expectation that villous adenomas have a higher chance of developing carcinomas (25).

Lymphovascular invasion was observed in 64 (67.37%) of cases, and perineural invasion in 14 (14.74%) of cases. Both lymphovascular invasion (p<0.01) and perineural invasion (p=0.002) were positively associated with tumour budding, similar to previous studies (22). Another study showed that as tumour budding scores increased, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, number of metastatic lymph nodes, and mortality rates also increased (23).

The majority of tumours (72 cases) were in T3 stage 72 (75.79%), indicating tumour extension through the muscularis propria into the pericolorectal fat, with no lymph node metastasis (pN0) in more than half of the cases (53.68%), consistent with previous research (26).

Tumour budding was low-grade in 42 cases (44.21%), intermediate-grade in 34 cases (35.79%), and high-grade in 19 cases (20.00%), similar to a previous study (26). The 40x hotspot method was found to be more feasible in daily practice, as tumour buds were more easily appreciated on 40x magnification compared to 20x magnification, and counting was easier due to the smaller field area. Tumour budding assessed on routine H&E sections using both ×20 and ×40 worst field scores has high reproducibility and significant correlation with prognosis (3).

In Stage-I and Stage-II tumours, the majority of them show low-grade tumour budding. Thirteen out of 17 cases of Stage-I tumours show low-grade budding, and 19 out of 33 cases of Stage-II show low-grade budding. In Stage-III, 18 out of 37 cases show intermediate-grade tumour budding, and four out of eight cases of Stage-IV show high-grade budding. The correlation between AJCC stage and tumour budding was found to be statistically significant (r-value: 0.39, p<0.001), similar to the study by Mehta A et al., where an association between tumour budding and AJCC stage (p-value=0.021) was also found to be statistically significant (24).

The majority of cases in T1 and T2 stages show low-grade tumour budding. Thirty out of 72 cases in T3 stage showed intermediate-grade budding. The correlation between T stage and tumour budding was statistically significant (r-value: 0.235, p-value: 0.022). Petrelli F et al., in their meta-analysis, found that tumour budding was a significant prognostic marker for Stage-2 colorectal cancer, and high-grade tumour budding in these cases was associated with a 25% increase in the risk of death within five years (27). Multivariate analysis revealed that tumour budding is an independent prognostic factor and is useful for identifying the subset of T3N0M0 patients who have a high risk of recurrence and would benefit from adjuvant treatment (28).

In a Delphi consensus study, the majority agreed that tumour budding score should be routinely assessed, and clinicians should take tumour budding into account when making decisions after local resection of pT1 CRC. When tumour budding is low-grade in pT1 CRC cases and there are no other risk factors, surgical resection is not necessary as the risk of nodal metastasis is considered very low. If intermediate or high-grade tumour budding is the only risk factor present, the need for additional surgical resection should be discussed, considering other clinical factors as well (29).

The majority of tumours with no lymph node metastasis (pN0) had low-grade tumour budding. The majority of tumours with lymph node metastasis had intermediate-grade (47.7%) and high-grade budding (29.5%). The association between lymph node metastasis and tumour budding was statistically significant (p<0.01), similar to the study by Mehta A et al., where an association between tumour budding and nodal involvement (p-value: 0.039) was also found to be statistically significant (24). Most of the tumours with lymph node metastasis in four or more lymph nodes show high-grade tumour budding. The correlation between the number of metastatic lymph nodes and tumour budding was statistically significant (r-value: 0.348, p-value: 0.001), similar to the study done by Ozer SP et al., where the tumour budding score was positively correlated with the number of metastatic lymph nodes (p-value=0.011). The relationship between tumour budding score and lymph node stage is significant, and it is observed that as the degree of tumour budding increases, pN also increases (23).

Researchers found that the presence of tumour budding increased the risk of lymph node metastasis (OR-value of 6.44, 95% CI 5.26-7.87; p<0.0001) and concluded that it was an independent prognostic marker in pT1 CRC (29). In the univariate analysis conducted by Kye BH et al., tumour budding was the only factor significantly correlated with lymph node metastasis (30). Tumour budding was found to have high sensitivity (83.3%), acceptable specificity (60.5%), and a high negative predictive value (0.958) (27). The association between tumour budding and tumour size, histological type, was not statistically significant (p-value=0.21), similar to the findings in the study by Mehta A et al., where no association was found between tumour budding and tumour size or histological type (24).

In a retrospective study of 37 participants, only one case had local recurrence, while four cases had metastasis. Approximately 51.4% of the patients followed-up were alive. The association between tumour budding and vital status was not statistically significant (p-value=0.18). However, a study by Ozer SP et al., found that patients with the presence of tumour buds had significantly lower cumulative survival rates compared to those without tumour buds. Additionally, patients with high tumour budding had significantly lower survival rates than those with low and moderate tumour budding grades (p-value <0.001) (23). The incidence of recurrence was 6.4%, 12.1%, and 23.6% in the low, intermediate, and high tumour budding groups, respectively (p-value <0.001). The grade of tumour budding was significantly associated with the incidence of recurrence in the liver, lung, lymph nodes, and peritoneum (p-value <0.001) (31).

Jäger T et al., investigated the prognostic significance of tumour budding for neoadjuvant treatment response in 128 rectal carcinoma patients and found that positive tumour budding was associated with poor 5-year relapse-free survival (32). Changzheng Du et al., assessed the prognostic value of tumour budding in 96 rectal carcinoma patients after radiotherapy alone and consecutive curative resection and found that tumour budding in irradiated specimens was an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (33). A multivariate proportional hazard model also found that the presence of budding was the only significant co-factor for postoperative survival (34).

In some cases, the assessment of tumour budding was difficult due to intense inflammatory infiltrate, and Pancytokeratin staining was done to identify the accurate tumour bud grade. Swathi M et al., found that there was an increased detection of high-grade tumour budding in IHC stained sections compared to H&E stained sections (21). Satoh K et al., found that the high-grade of tumour budding assessed with cytokeratin stained sections detected more cases with venous invasion, lymphatic invasion, and lymph node metastasis compared to the budding grade assessed in H&E sections (22). However, there was excellent concordance of tumour budding assessed on H&E slides and immunohistochemical stained slides of irradiated rectal carcinomas, indicating the feasibility of assessing tumour budding on H&E stained slides of irradiated specimens (27).

Tumour budding is an independent prognostic factor and high-grade tumour budding is associated with an increased chance of lymph node metastasis and recurrence (10). It is now incorporated into the College of American Pathologists (CAP) protocol for reporting colorectal cancer and is to be reported according to ITBCC criteria (16),(35). Tumour budding can potentially be used to guide chemotherapy administration in patients. It has been found to be associated with worse survival in Stage-II CRC, especially in pT3N0M0 cases. Therefore, tumour budding can help in the decision about giving chemotherapy to high-risk patients with no lymph node metastasis (27). Chemotherapy efficacy is comparable in high-grade and low-grade tumour budding groups, but the reduction in recurrence is greater in patients with a tumour bud count of 10 or more (36). Tumour budding is also a reliable predictor for the chance of lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer, and in such cases, additional surgical resection may be warranted (37). High-grade tumour budding is significantly associated with reduced cancer-specific survival, and it effectively stratifies patients’ survival in primary operable colorectal cancer [38,39]. The reporting of tumour budding grade should be included in routine histopathology reports to help clinicians decide on further treatment and improve patient survival.

Limitation(s)

Tumour budding grading could not be done according to ITBCC criteria due to the unavailability of a x20 objective microscope. Additionally, not all patients could be followed-up, as some were referred elsewhere or lost to follow-up. Recurrence, metastasis, and vital status were only assessed in patients who underwent surgery between January 2015 and November 2019 and completed at least three years of postsurgical resection.

Conclusion

Tumour budding is an important histopathological finding that is positively correlated with pathological staging and lymph node metastasis. It is preferential to mention the grade of tumour budding in histopathology reports, as it helps clinicians stratify patients into different risk categories and make decisions on further treatment modalities such as chemotherapy.

References

1.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(2):106-30. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Goldblum JR, Lamps LW, McKenney JK, Myers JL, Ackerman LV, Rosai J, editors. Rosai and Ackerman’s surgical pathology. 11th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2018. Pp. 2.
3.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-49. Doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. Epub 2021 Feb 4. PMID: 33538338. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Asthana S, Khenchi R, Labani S. Incidence of colorectal cancers in India: A review from population-based cancer registries. Curr Med Res Pract. 2021;11:91-96. [crossref]
5.
Mathew A, George PS, Kalavathy MC, Padmakumari G, Jagathnath Krishna KM, Sebastian P. Cancer incidence and mortality: District Cancer Registry, Trivandrum, South India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017;18(6):1485-91. Doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.6.1485. PMID: 28669156; PMCID: PMC6373790.i: 10.1245/s10434-021-10286-6. Epub 2021 Jul 7. PMID: 34232421.
6.
Mathew A, Kalavathy MC, George PS, Jagathnath Krishna KM, Sebastian P. Urban-rural disparities in female cancer incidence and mortality in Trivandrum, South India. Ann Transl Med Epidemiol. 2017;4(1):1011.
7.
Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND. Tumours of colon and rectum. In: World health organisation classification of tumours of the digestive system. Lyon: IARC Press 2010:104-43.
8.
Puppa G, Sonzogni A, Colombari R, Pelosi G. TNM staging system of colorectal carcinoma: A critical appraisal of challenging issues. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(6):837-52. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Zlobec I, Lugli A. Epithelial mesenchymal transition and tumour budding in aggressive colorectal cancer: Tumour budding as oncotarget. Oncotarget. 2010;1(7):651-61. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Mitrovic B, Schaeffer DF, Riddell RH, Kirsch R. Tumour budding in colorectal carcinoma: Time to take notice. Mod Pathol. 2012;25(10):1315-25. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Kyong Shin J, Ah Park Y, Wook Huh J, Hyeon Yun S, Cheol Kim H, Yong Lee W, et al. Is high-grade tumour budding an independent prognostic factor in stage-ii colon cancer? Dis Colon Rectum. 2023;66(8):e801-08. Doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002345. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Hase K, Shatney C, Johnson D, Trollope M, Vierra M. Prognostic value of tumour “budding” in patients with colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36(7):627-35. Doi: 10.1007/BF02238588. PMID: 8348847. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Ueno H, Murphy J, Jass JR, Mochizuki H, Talbot IC. Tumour ‘budding’ as an index to estimate the potential of aggressiveness in rectal cancer. Histopathology. 2002;40(2):127-32. Doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2559.2002.01324.x. PMID: 11952856. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Nakamura T, Mitomi H, Kikuchi S, Ohtani Y, Sato K. Evaluation of the usefulness of tumour budding on the prediction of metastasis to the lung and liver after curative excision of colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2005;52(65):1432-35. PMID: 16201089.
15.
Roy P, Datta J, Roy M, Mallick I, Mohandas M. Reporting of tumour budding in colorectal adenocarcinomas using ×40 objective: A practical approach for resource constrained set-ups. Indian J Cancer. 2017;54(4):640-45. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Lugli A, Kirsch R, Ajioka Y, Bosman F, Cathomas G, Dawson H, et al. Recommendations for reporting tumour budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumour Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016. Mod Pathol. 2017;30(9):1299-311. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Kuipers EJ, Grady WM, Lieberman D, Seufferlein T, Sung JJ, Boelens PG, et al. Colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primer. 2015;1:15065. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Park KJ, Choi HJ, Roh MS, Kwon HC, Kim C. Intensity of tumour budding and its prognostic implications in invasive colon carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(8):1597-602. [crossref][PubMed]
19.
Markowski AR, Markowska AJ, Ustymowicz W, Pryczynicz A, Guzin´ ska-Ustymowicz K. Simultaneous analysis of tumour-infiltrating immune cells density, tumour budding status, and presence of lymphoid follicles in CRC tissue. Sci Rep. 2022;12:21732. https://Doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26225-8. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Demir A, Alan O, Oruc E. Tumour budding for predicting prognosis of resected rectum cancer after neoadjuvant treatment. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):50. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Swathi M, Mahadevappa A, Susheel MS. Significance of tumour budding with cytokeratin 20 immunostaining as a histopathological prognostic marker in colorectal adenocarcinoma. J Clin of Diagn Res. 2019;13(1):EC03-EC07. [crossref]
22.
Satoh K, Nimura S, Aoki M, Hamasaki M, Koga K, Iwasaki H, et al. Tumour budding in colorectal carcinoma assessed by cytokeratin immunostaining and budding areas: Possible involvement of c-Met. Cancer Sci. 2014;105(11):1487-95. [crossref][PubMed]
23.
Ozer SP, Barut SG, Ozer B, Catal O, Sit M. The relationship between tumour budding and survival in colorectal carcinomas. Rev Assoc Médica Bras. 2020;65(12):1442-47. [crossref][PubMed]
24.
Mehta A, Goswami M, Sinha R, Dogra A. Histopathological significance and prognostic impact of tumour budding in colorectal cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018;19(9):2447-53. Doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.9.2447. PMID: 30255698; PMCID: PMC6249446.
25.
Fleming M, Ravula S, Tatishchev SF, Wang HL. Colorectal carcinoma: Pathologic aspects. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2012;3(3):153-73.
26.
Fujiyoshi K, Väyrynen JP, Borowsky J, Papke DJ, Arima K, Haruki K, et al. Tumour budding, poorly differentiated clusters, and T-cell response in colorectal cancer. E Bio Medicine. 2020;57:102860.[crossref][PubMed]
27.
Petrelli F, Pezzica E, Cabiddu M, Coinu A, Borgonovo K, Ghilardi M, et al. Tumour budding and survival in Stage-II colorectal cancer: A systematic review and pooled analysis. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2015;46(3):212-18. [crossref][PubMed]
28.
Wang LM, Kevans D, Mulcahy H, O’Sullivan J, Fennelly D, Hyland J, et al. Tumour budding is a strong and reproducible prognostic marker in T3N0 colorectal cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(1):134-41. [crossref][PubMed]
29.
Haddad TS, Lugli A, Aherne S, Barresi V, Terris B, Bokhorst JM, et al. Improving tumour budding reporting in colorectal cancer: A Delphi consensus study. Virchows Arch. 2021;479(3):459-69. [crossref][PubMed]
30.
Kye BH, Jung JH, Kim HJ, Kang SG, Cho HM, Kim JG. Tumor budding as a risk factor of lymph node metastasis in submucosal invasive T1 colorectal carcinoma: A retrospective study. BMC Surg. 2012;12:16. Doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-12-16. PMID: 22866826; PMCID: PMC3469500. [crossref][PubMed]
31.
Ueno H, Mochizuki H, Hashiguchi Y, Shimazaki H, Aida S, Hase K, et al. Risk factors for an adverse outcome in early invasive colorectal carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(2):385-94. [crossref][PubMed]
32.
Jäger T, Neureiter D, Fallaha M, Schredl P, Kiesslich T, Urbas R, et al. The potential predictive value of tumor budding for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy response in locally advanced rectal cancer. Strahlenther Onkol. 2018;194(11):991-1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-018-1340-0. [crossref][PubMed]
33.
Changzheng Du, Weicheng Xue, Jiyou Li, Yong Cai, Jin Gu. Morphology and prognostic value of tumor budding in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant radiotherapy, Human Pathology. 2012;43(7):1061-67. ISSN 0046-8177, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2011.07.026. [crossref][PubMed]
34.
Okuyama T, Oya M, Ishikawa H. Budding as a useful prognostic marker in pT3 well- or moderately-differentiated rectal adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2003;83(1):42-47. [crossref][PubMed]
35.
Kakar S, Shi C, Berho ME, Driman DK, Fitzgibbons P, Frankel WL. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with primary carcinoma of the colon and rectum. (V4. 0.0.1). College of American Pathologists. (CAP) website. https:// documents.cap.org/protocols/cp-gilower-colonrectum-17protocol-4010.pdf. Date of access :22/02/2020.
36.
Mitrovic B, Handley K, Assarzadegan N, Chang HL, Dawson HAE, Grin A, et al; QUASAR Collaborative Group. Prognostic and predictive value of tumour budding in colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2021;20(3):256-64. Doi: 10.1016/j. clcc.2021.05.003. Epub 2021 May 14. PMID: 34099382. [crossref][PubMed]
37.
Lee SJ, Kim A, Kim YK, Park WY, Kim HS, Jo HJ, et al. The significance of tumour budding in T1 colorectal carcinoma: The most reliable predictor of lymph node metastasis especially in endoscopically resected T1 colorectal carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2018;78:08-17. Doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.02.001. Epub 2018 Feb 13. PMID: 29447923. [crossref][PubMed]
38.
van Wyk HC, Roseweir A, Alexander P, Park JH, Horgan PG, McMillan DC, et al. The relationship between tumour budding, tumour microenvironment, and survival in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(13):4397-404. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07931-6. Epub 2019 Oct 11. PMID: 31605345; PMCID: PMC6863941. [crossref][PubMed]
39.
Shin JK, Park YA, Huh JW, Yun SH, Kim HC, Lee WY, et al. Tumour budding as a prognostic marker in rectal cancer patients on propensity score analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(13):8813-22.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/63006.18546

Date of Submission: Jan 21, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Mar 07, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Jul 19, 2023
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2023

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jan 25, 2023
• Manual Googling: Apr 13, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Jul 15, 2023 (20%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 8

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com