Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

The clinicopathological features of colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma and a therapeutic strategy for the disease

  • 1Email author,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 2,
  • 2,
  • 2,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 3 and
  • 1
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201210:109

https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-10-109

  • Received: 16 January 2012
  • Accepted: 15 June 2012
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

The guidelines established by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network do not describe mucinous histology as a clinical factor that should influence the therapeutic algorithm. However, previous studies show conflicting results regarding the prognosis of colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma. In this study, we described the clinicopathological features of mucinous adenocarcinoma in Japan, to identify optimal therapeutic strategies.

Methods

144 patients with mucinous and 2673 with non-mucinous adenocarcinomas who underwent primary resection in two major centers in Yokohama, Japan were retrospectively evaluated for clinicopathological features and treatment factors. A multivariate analysis for overall survival followed by the comparison of overall survival using Cox proportional hazard model were performed.

Results

Patients with mucinous adenocarcinoma had larger primary lesions, higher preoperative CEA levels, a deeper depth of invasion, higher rates of nodal and distant metastasis, and more metastatic sites. A multivariate analysis for overall survival revealed a mucinous histology to be an independent prognostic factor. In the subgroup analysis stratified by stage, Patients diagnosed as StageIII and IV disease had a worse survival in mucinous adenocarcinoma than non-mucinous, while survival did not differ significantly in patients diagnosed as Stage0-II disease. In StageIII, local recurrence in rectal cases and peritoneal dissemination were more frequently observed in patients with a mucinous histology.

Conclusions

Our study indentified that mucinous adenocarcinoma was associated with a worse survival compared with non-mucinous in patients with StageIII and IV disease. In rectal StageIII disease with mucinous histology, additional therapy to control local recurrence followed by surgical resection may be a strategical alternative. Further molecular investigations considering genetic features of mucinous histology will lead to drug development and better management of peritoneal metastasis

Keywords

  • Mucinous adenocarcinoma
  • Colorectal cancer
  • Clinicopathological feature

Background

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the fourth most frequent cause of cancer death worldwide [1]. Mucinous adenocarcinoma (MA) is diagnosed when more than 50% of the tumor comprises a mucinous pattern upon histological examination [2]. MA makes up 6 to 20% of all colorectal cancers [38], and differs from non-mucinous adenocarcinoma (NMA) with regard to its clinicopathological characteristics, distinct genetic profiles, and pathogenic pathways [912].

The prognostic significance of MA is controversial. In previous studies, mucinous histology was reported not to be an independent prognostic factor for survival [13, 14]. The guidelines established by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) do not describe mucinous histology as a clinical factor that should influence the therapeutic algorithm [15, 16]. However, in some studies, it is reported that MA is associated with worse clinicopathological characteristics [1719] and a poorer prognosis than NMA [5, 17, 2023].

The lack of a consensus may be the result of the low ratio of MA to all colorectal cancers and the limited detection power to clarify the differences between MA and NMA.

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with colorectal cancer at two major centers to identify the clinicopathological features of MA, and also investigated the recurrence to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for MA.

Methods

Patients

The data from 2,817 patients with colorectal cancer in two major centers, Kanagawa Cancer Center and Yokohama City University Medical Center, between 2001 and 2010 were investigated. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this report and any accompanying images. All patients initially underwent resection of a primary lesion followed by adjuvant chemotherapy when diagnosed as stage III disease. In tumor, node metastases (TNM) stage T3 to T4, lower-rectal cases, total mesorectal excision (TME) and lateral node dissection were routinely performed at initial resection. No patients were treated with neo- or adjuvant radiation therapy.

The analyzed patients were diagnosed with MA, defined as tumors with more than 50% of the tumor volume comprising mucin, or with NMA, defined as tumors without any mucinous features, or with a less than 50% mucinous component [2]. Patients diagnosed with signet ring cell carcinoma, undifferentiated carcinoma, and other histological types were excluded from the analysis.

The covariates included in the study were gender, age, location of the tumor, size of the primary tumor, preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, distant metastasis, operating facility, and histological type. The pathological tumor status was coded using the TNM classification system [24]. The use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with curative resection, as well as additional therapy (chemotherapy and/or surgery) for recurrent and non-curative cases were also recorded.

In the analysis of the survival rates, all cases were divided into 3 groups, that is, patients without any metastases (stage 0 to II [24]), patients with regional lymph node metastasis but without distant metastasis (stage III), and patients with distant metastasis (stage IV).

Statistical analysis

The two groups of patients (MA and NMA) were compared using 2 × 2 tables for binary factors using the χ2-test, or Fisher’s exact test where appropriate. Overall survival was calculated from the date of surgery for the primary lesion until death from any cause, or was censored at the last follow-up visit. Survival data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. A comparison of survival curves was carried out using the log-rank test. The prognostic significance was analyzed by multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant, and all P-values correspond to two-sided significance tests.

Results

Of the 2,817 colorectal cancer patients, MA accounted for 5.1% (144) of the colorectal cancer cases. The distribution of the patients’ characteristics is shown in Table 1. The distribution for gender, age, and location of MA was similar to that of NMA. The patients with MA had significantly larger primary lesions, higher preoperative serum CEA levels, deeper invasion, higher nodal and distant metastasis rates, and a larger number of metastatic sites compared to the patients with NMA.
Table 1

Comparison of clinicopathological characteristics in non-mucinous and mucinous adenocarcinoma

Characteristics

NMA

MA

P-value

  

(n = 2,673)

(n = 144)

 

Gender

   

0.772

 

Female

1,072

56

 
 

Male

1,601

88

 

Age, years

  

0.271

 

< 65

1,183

57

 
 

65

1,490

87

 

Location

   

0.090

 

Colon

1,516

92

 
 

Rectum

1,157

57

 

Size, cm

   

< 0.001

 

< 5

1,715

59

 
 

≥ 5

958

85

 

Preoperative serum CEA, ng/ml

  

< 0.001

 

<5.0

1,858

80

 
 

5.0

815

64

 

Depth of invasiona

  

< 0.001

 

T1, T2

979

13

 
 

T3, T4

1,694

131

 

Lymph node metastasisa

  

0.002

 

N0

1,602

68

 
 

N1, N2

1,071

76

 

Distant metastasisa

  

0.010

 

M0

2,319

114

 
 

M1

354

30

 

Number of metastatic sites

  

0.019

 

0

2,319

114

 
 

1

269

25

 
 

2

86

5

 

aStaging of tumor (T), nodes (N), and metastases (M) [24]; NMA, non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; MA, mucinous adenocarcinoma.

Table 2 shows the distribution of treatment factors, including the curability of the first surgery, rate of adjuvant chemotherapy, chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent cases, and additional surgery for liver and lung metastasis. For these factors, there were no significant differences between the MA and NMA groups. Unlike western countries, neo- or adjuvant radiation therapy for patients with stage II and III disease is not commonly performed in Japan.
Table 2

Comparison of treatment factors in non-mucinous and mucinous adenocarcinoma

Treatment factors

NMA

MA

P-value

Curability of first surgery

n = 2,673

n = 144

0.063

   Complete

2,411

123

 

   Incomplete

262

21

 

Curability of first surgery in rectal cancer

n = 1,157

n = 57

0.885

   Complete

1,101

54

 

   Incomplete

56

3

 

Lateral node dissection in rectal cancer

n = 1157

n = 57

0.104

   Yes

189

14

 

   No

968

43

 

Adjuvant chemotherapy

n = 773

n = 54

0.192

   Yes

357

20

 

   No

416

34

 

Chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent cases

n = 639

n = 55

0.597

   Yes

220

17

 

   No

419

38

 

Additional resection

   

Liver resection for metastatic cases

n = 249

n = 11

0.884

   Yes

73

3

 

   No

176

8

 

Lung resection for metastatic cases

n = 123

n = 5

0.179

   Yes

33

0

 

   No

90

5

 

NMA, non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; MA, mucinous adenocarcinoma.

To clarify the prognostic factors for colorectal cancer, univariate and multivariate analysis were carried out. Mucinous histology was noted to be one of the independent prognostic factors for overall survival in univariate and multivariate analysis (Tables 3 and 4). The 5-year relative survival rate of the MA patients was 52.2%, which was significantly worse than that of the NMA patients (73.8%), with a median follow-up of 52 months (range 1 to 128 months) (Figure 1).
Table 3

Univariate analysis of overall survival in colorectal adenocarcinoma

Variables

 

HR (95% CI)

P-value

Gender

  

0.004

 

Female

1.0

 
 

Male

1.349 (1.098, 1.656)

 

Age, years

  

0.049

 

< 65

1.0

 
 

65

1.217 (1.001, 1.480)

 

Location

  

0.049

 

Colon

1.0

 
 

Rectum

1.212 (1.000, 1.468)

 

Size, cm

  

< 0.001

 

< 5

1.0

 
 

5m

2.432 (2.001, 2.955)

 

Preoperative serum CEA, ng/ml

 

< 0.001

 

< 5.0

1.0

 
 

5.0

3.223 (2.654, 3.915)

 

Depth of invasiona

 

< 0.001

 

T1, T2

1.0

 
 

T3, T4

6.122 (4.311, 8.694)

 

Lymph node metastasisa

 

< 0.001

 

N0

1.0

 
 

N1, N2

4.527 (3.972, 5.122)

 

Distant metastasisa

 

< 0.001

 

M0

1.0

 
 

M1

8.133 (6.697, 9.877)

 

Operating facility

 

< 0.001

 

Center A

1.0

 
 

Center B

2.365 (1.943, 2.878)

 

Histological type

 

< 0.001

 

NMA

1.0

 
 

MA

2.614 (1.905, 3.585)

 

aStaging of tumor (T), nodes (N), and metastases (M) [24]; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; NMA, non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; MA, mucinous adenocarcinoma.

Table 4

Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis of overall survival in colorectal adenocarcinoma

Variables

 

HR (95% CI)

P-value

Gender

  

0.020

 

Female

1.0

 
 

Male

1.278 (1.040, 1.572)

 

Age, years

  

0.007

 

< 65

1.0

 
 

65

1.317 (1.078, 1.608)

 

Location

  

0.020

 

Colon

1.0

 
 

Rectum

1.267 (1.038, 1.547)

 

Size, cm

  

0.112

 

< 5

1.0

 
 

5

1.184 (0.961, 1.459)

 

Preoperative serum CEA, ng/ml

 

< 0.001

 

< 5.0

1.0

 
 

5.0

1.483 (1.203, 1.828)

 

Depth of invasiona

 

< 0.001

 

T1, T2

1.0

 
 

T3, T4

2.253 (1.534, 3.308)

 

Lymph node metastasisa

 

< 0.001

 

N0

1.0

 
 

N1, N2

2.427 (1.893, 3.105)

 

Distant metastasisa

 

< 0.001

 

M0

1.0

 
 

M1

4.165 (3.350, 5.179)

 

Operating facility

 

0.032

 

Center A

1.0

 
 

Center B

1.192 (1.002, 1.395)

 

Histological type

 

< 0.001

 

NMA

1.0

 
 

MA

2.226 (1.618, 3.062)

 

aStaging of tumor (T), nodes (N), and metastases (M) [24]; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; NMA, non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; MA, mucinous adenocarcinoma.

Figure 1
Figure 1

The 5-year relative survival rate of patients with mucinous adenocarcinoma (52.2%) was significantly worse than those with non-mucinous adenocarcinoma (73.8%) as determined by the log-rank test ( P< 0.001). 5yOS, 5-year overall survival.

We next divided all cases into 3 groups (stage 0 to II, stage III, and stage IV) to compare the overall survival in each group. There were no significant differences in 5-year survival in stage 0 to II based on the histological status (MA: 88.5% vs. NMA: 91.0%, P = 0.099) (Figure 2). However, in stage III (MA: 47.3% vs. NMA: 70.5%, P < 0.001) (Figure 3) and stage IV (MA: 5.4% vs. NMA: 23.8%, P < 0.001) (Figure 4), the MA patients had a significantly worse survival rate than the NMA patients.
Figure 2
Figure 2

The 5-year overall survival of patients with stage I or stage II non-mucinous adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma.

Figure 3
Figure 3

The 5-year overall survival of patients with stage III non-mucinous adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma.

Figure 4
Figure 4

The 5-year overall survival of patients with stage IV non-mucinous adenocarcinoma and mucinous adenocarcinoma.

The recurrence pattern in stage III was analyzed (Table 5). The number of patients with any recurrence in the MA and NMA groups was 17 (31.4%) and 182 (23.5%), respectively. The rate of liver metastasis, distant lymph node metastasis, lung metastasis, and other site recurrence was similar between the two groups. Peritoneal dissemination (7.4% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.049), and local recurrence (9.2% vs. 2.3%, P = 0.013) were more frequently observed in the MA group. All of the locally recurrent cases in the MA group were rectal cases.
Table 5

The comparison of recurrent pattern in patients with stage III disease

Recurrent pattern

NMA

MA

P-value

 

(n = 774)

(n = 54)

 

Liver metastasis

80 (10.3%)

4 (7.4%)

0.643

Peritoneal metastasis

18 (2.3%)

4 (7.4%)

0.049

Distant lymph node metastasis

30 (3.8%)

1 (1.8%)

0.715

Lung metastasis

60 (7.7%)

4 (7.4%)

1.000

Local recurrence

18 (2.3%)

5 (9.2%)

0.013

Other site recurrence

16 (2.0%)

3 (5.5%)

0.121

NMA, non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; MA, mucinous adenocarcinoma.

The treatment factors were compared in stage IV disease (Table 6). However, the curability of the first resection, first regimen of chemotherapy, and the rate of additional resection did not differ significantly between the MA and NMA groups.
Table 6

Comparison of treatment factors in patients with stage IV disease

Treatment factors

NMA

MA

P-value

 

(n = 349)

(n = 28)

 

Curability of first surgery

  

0.353

   Complete

96 (27.5%)

10 (35.7%)

 

   Incomplete

253 (72.5%)

18 (64.3%)

 

Regimen of first chemotherapy

  

0.362

   OXA-based

25 (7.1%)

3 (10.7%)

 

   IRI-based

18 (5.1%)

3 (10.7%)

 

   5-FU intravenously

43 (12.3%)

4 (14.2%)

 

   5-FU orally

36 (10.3%)

4 (14.2%)

 

Additional resection

   

   Liver resection

75 (21.4%)

3 (10.7%)

0.228

   Lung resection

10 (2.8%)

0 (0.0%)

1.000

OXA, oxaliplatin; IRI, irinotecan; 5-FU, 5-fluolouracil; NMA, non-mucinous adenocarcinoma; MA, mucinous adenocarcinoma.

Discussion

In this study, the data from 2,817 colorectal cancer patients who underwent surgery in two major medical centers in Yokohama city, Japan, were analyzed. In these 2,817 patients, the incidence of MA was 5.1%, which generally corresponds to the rate in other Asian countries, as reported by Chew (6.0% from Singapore) [3] and Safaee (8.5% from Iran) [6]. Other studies from Western countries described that the proportion of MA ranged from 11 to 20% [4, 5, 7, 8], which is higher than the rate for Asian countries. This disparity may reflect the differences in geographic, ethnic and dietary factors.

In the analysis of the patients’ characteristics, the MA group had worse clinical factors, including larger primary lesions, deeper invasion, higher rates of nodal and distant metastasis, and a larger number of metastatic sites compared to the NMA group. The previous reports showed that younger patients, larger tumors, higher rates of lymph node metastasis, and peritoneal metastasis were correlated with MA histology when compared to NMA histology [1719], which was mostly in agreement with our results.

The reason why MA patients have worse characteristics than NMA patients is not fully understood. Sugarbaker et al. demonstrated that the more malignant characteristics of MA may be partly due to the production of mucus under pressure, which allows the MA cells to gain access to the peritoneal cavity. Moreover, the fluid produced by MA is taken up by the lymphatic system, which might help to promote tumor spread into regional lymph nodes [25].

It remains unclear whether MA adversely affects survival in colorectal cancer patients. In some studies, MA has been shown to be a significant prognostic factor [5, 17, 2023], while others have found no such evidence [13, 14, 26]. Both the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the College of American Pathologists consider that the MA subtype has not been proven to be a statistically significant prognostic factor [14, 27]. The contradictions in the various studies may be explained by the geographical and racial variations in the epidemiology of colorectal cancer [28, 29], disparities in the criteria for defining MA [22, 30], and insufficient sample sizes to disclose any differences. In this study, we compared the relative survival rate of MA and NMA patients in a relatively large number of patients, and revealed that the MA patients had significantly worse survival than the NMA patients. Furthermore, multivariate analysis demonstrated that MA histology is an independent prognostic factor.

Based on our findings, we also performed an investigation to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for MA. To exclude the bias caused by stage, which is related to the status of lymph node metastasis and distant metastasis, we divided all cases into three subgroups and analyzed the relative survival rate in each group. Consequently, the prognosis of patients with MA was similar to that of patients with NMA in stage I/II, whereas it was significantly worse for MA patients in both stage III and stage IV. Some of the above-mentioned literature supports the relatively worse survival of MA patients when the subjects are limited to stage III and stage IV disease [8, 18, 21], which is consistent with our results. According to these results, we speculated that the worse survival of stage III and IV may contribute to the relatively poor overall prognosis of the MA cases.

In the analysis of the recurrence pattern of stage III disease, the incidence of local recurrence and peritoneal metastasis was significantly higher in patients with MA than in those with NMA. In addition, all cases of local recurrence in the MA group were in patients with rectal disease. Differences in the rates of liver, lung, and distant lymph node metastases were not statistically significant.

In stage IV disease, we compared the treatment factors, including the curability of the first resection, first chemotherapeutic regimen, and the need for additional resection (liver and lung resection). This analysis revealed that equivalent treatments were performed for both MA and NMA patients.

Our results indicate that better management of the local and peritoneal recurrence of stage III disease may improve the survival of MA patients. In terms of local control, previous studies have shown that the difference in survival between MA and NMA patients was mainly related to tumors with a rectal location [18], because MA cases are more likely to be locally recurrent [31], which supports our present results. Green et al. pointed out that the lymphatic drainage of the pelvis is more extensive and varied compared with that of the colon [5].

In the NCCN guidelines for treatment of rectal cancer [16], it is recommended to perform pre- or postoperative radiation therapy for patients with T3 to T4, or N1 to N2 disease. However, In Japan, Sugihara et al. showed that the five-year overall survival and the five-year locally controlling ratio in patients with T3 to T4 rectal cancer treated by TME plus lateral node dissection, was 79.7% and 92.0% respectively [32]. Consequently, TME and lateral node dissection is considered a standard therapy for T3 to T4 rectal cancer, and neo- or adjuvant radiation therapy is not commonly selected in Japan.

Considering our result, the application of pre- or postoperative radiation therapy [3336] may be a strategy to prevent the development of local recurrence in MA cases.

We also found that peritoneal metastasis was a significant site of recurrence for MA in stage III disease. Metastasis to the peritoneum is regarded to be a fatal manifestation of gastrointestinal cancer, and is associated with a median survival time of 5.2 to 12.6 months [37, 38]. In terms of the sensitivity to chemotherapy, previous reports have demonstrated that a mucinous histology generally predicts a reduced response to a 5-FU-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based regimen [39, 40].

It is well known that there are several molecular pathways involving oncogene (for example KRAS) and the suppressor gene in colorectal carcinogenesis [41], and cetuximab is an established drug used for downstream blocking of the EGFR-KRAS pathway. However, according to Hanski et al., MA histology is characterized by a high frequency of KRAS mutations, and a high frequency of microsatellite instability [9], suggesting that MA histology generally has drug-resistant properties of cetuximab. It is also revealed that MA has different molecular alterations and genetic subtypes to NMA [42]. Detailed molecular and genetic analyses to detect specific pathways of MA will help to develop new systemic chemotherapy, which is necessary to improve peritoneal metastasis and overall survival in patients with MA.

Conclusion

Our study indentified MA histology as an independent prognostic factor, and revealed that MA was associated with worse survival compared with NMA in patients with stage III and IV disease. The ability of MA to disseminate and infiltrate more aggressively than NMA appears to be responsible, at least in part, for the higher rate of failure in stage III and IV, which are the main reasons for the overall poorer prognosis of patients with MA. Controlling local recurrence and managing peritoneal metastasis are necessary to improve the overall survival in patients with MA.

Besides considering radiation therapy after TME and radical lymph node dissection for locally advanced rectal cases, further investigations focusing on the genetic and molecular characteristics of MA, will help better management of MA histology.

Abbreviations

CEA: 

Carcinoembryonic antigen

5-FU: 

5-fluolouracil

IRI: 

Irinotecan

MA: 

Mucinous adenocarcinoma

NCCN: 

National Comprehensive Cancer Network NMA, non-mucinous adenocarcinoma

OXA: 

Oxaliplatin

TME: 

Total mesorectal excision

TNM: 

Tumor, node, metastases.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kanagawa Cancer Center, 1-1-2 Nakao, Asahi-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 241-0815, Japan
(2)
Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, 4-57 Urafune-cho, Minami-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 232-0024, Japan
(3)
Department of Surgery, Yokohama City University, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 236-0004, Japan

References

  1. Weitz J, Koch M, Debus J, Hohler T, Galle PR, Buchler MW: Colorectal cancer. Lancet. 2005, 365: 153-165. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17706-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA: Pathology and Genetics, Tumours of the Digestive System. In World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. 2000, IARC, Lyon, 3Google Scholar
  3. Chew MH, Yeo SA, Ng ZP, Lim KH, Koh PK, Ng KH, Eu KW: Critical analysis of mucin and signet ring cell as prognostic factors in an Asian population of 2,764 sporadic colorectal cancers. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010, 25: 1221-1229. 10.1007/s00384-010-1033-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Thomas RM, Sobin LH: Gastrointestinal cancer. Cancer. 1995, 75: 154-170. 10.1002/1097-0142(19950101)75:1+<154::AID-CNCR2820751305>3.0.CO;2-Z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Green JB, Timmcke AE, Mitchell WT, Hicks TC, Gathright JB, Ray JE: Mucinous carcinoma–just another colon cancer?. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993, 36: 49-54. 10.1007/BF02050301.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Safaee A, Moghimi-Dehkordi B, Fatemi SR, Ghiasi S, Nemati-Malek F, Zali MR: Characteristics of colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma in Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010, 11: 1373-1375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Symonds DA, Vickery AL: Mucinous carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Cancer. 1976, 37: 1891-1900. 10.1002/1097-0142(197604)37:4<1891::AID-CNCR2820370439>3.0.CO;2-Z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Xie L, Villeneuve PJ, Shaw A: Survival of patients diagnosed with either colorectal mucinous or non-mucinous adenocarcinoma: a population-based study in Canada. Int J Oncol. 2009, 34: 1109-1115.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanski C: Is mucinous carcinoma of the colorectum a distinct genetic entity?. Br J Cancer. 1995, 72: 1350-1356. 10.1038/bjc.1995.514.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Zhang H, Evertsson S, Sun X: Clinicopathological and genetic characteristics of mucinous carcinomas in the colorectum. Int J Oncol. 1999, 14: 1057-1061.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim DH, Kim JW, Cho JH, Baek SH, Kakar S, Kim GE, Sleisenger MH, Kim YS: Expression of mucin core proteins, trefoil factors, APC and p21 in subsets of colorectal polyps and cancers suggests a distinct pathway of pathogenesis of mucinous carcinoma of the colorectum. Int J Oncol. 2005, 27: 957-964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Song GA, Deng G, Bell I, Kakar S, Sleisenger MH, Kim YS: Mucinous carcinomas of the colorectum have distinct molecular genetic characteristics. Int J Oncol. 2005, 26: 745-750.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Purdie CA, Piris J: Histopathological grade, mucinous differentiation and DNA ploidy in relation to prognosis in colorectal carcinoma. Histopathology. 2000, 36: 121-126. 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2000.00826.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Compton C, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Pettigrew N, Fielding LP: American Joint Committee on Cancer Prognostic Factors Consensus Conference: Colorectal Working Group. Cancer. 2000, 88: 1739-1757. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000401)88:7<1739::AID-CNCR30>3.0.CO;2-T.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Engstrom PF, Arnoletti JP, Benson AB, Chen YJ, Choti MA, Cooper HS, Covey A, Dilawari RA, Early DS, Enzinger PC, Fakih MG, Fleshman J, Fuchs C, Grem JL, Kiel K, Knol JA, Leong LA, Lin E, Mulcahy MF, Rao S, Ryan DP, Saltz L, Shibata D, Skibber JM, Sofocleous C, Thomas J, Venook AP, Willett C: National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: colon cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009, 7: 778-831.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Engstrom PF, Arnoletti JP, Benson AB, Chen YJ, Choti MA, Cooper HS, Covey A, Dilawari RA, Early DS, Enzinger PC, Fakih MG, Fleshman J, Fuchs C, Grem JL, Kiel K, Knol JA, Leong LA, Lin E, Mulcahy MF, Rao S, Ryan DP, Saltz L, Shibata D, Skibber JM, Sofocleous C, Thomas J, Venook AP, Willett C: National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: rectal cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009, 7: 838-881.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Nozoe T, Anai H, Nasu S, Sugimachi K: Clinicopathological characteristics of mucinous carcinoma of the colon and rectum. J Surg Oncol. 2000, 75: 103-107. 10.1002/1096-9098(200010)75:2<103::AID-JSO6>3.0.CO;2-C.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Du W, Mah JT, Lee J, Sankila R, Sankaranarayanan R, Chia KS: Incidence and survival of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colorectum: a population-based study from an Asian country. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004, 47: 78-85. 10.1007/s10350-003-0014-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Maksimovic S: Survival rates of patients with mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colorectum. Med Arh. 2007, 61: 26-29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Secco GB, Fardelli R, Campora E, Lapertosa G, Gentile R, Zoli S, Prior C: Primary mucinous adenocarcinomas and signet-ring cell carcinomas of colon and rectum. Oncology. 1994, 51: 30-34. 10.1159/000227306.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Consorti F, Lorenzotti A, Midiri G, Di Paola M: Prognostic significance of mucinous carcinoma of colon and rectum: a prospective case-control study. J Surg Oncol. 2000, 73: 70-74. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(200002)73:2<70::AID-JSO3>3.0.CO;2-J.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kanemitsu Y, Kato T, Hirai T, Yasui K, Morimoto T, Shimizu Y, Kodera Y, Yamamura Y: Survival after curative resection for mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colorectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003, 46: 160-167. 10.1007/s10350-004-6518-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Papadopoulos VN, Michalopoulos A, Netta S, Basdanis G, Paramythiotis D, Zatagias A, Berovalis P, Harlaftis N: Prognostic significance of mucinous component in colorectal carcinoma. Tech Coloproctol. 2004, 8 (Suppl 1): 123-125.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz A: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 7th edn. 2010, AJCC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Sugarbaker PH: Mucinous colorectal carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2001, 77: 282-283. 10.1002/jso.1111.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Galandiuk S, Wieand HS, Moertel CG, Cha SS, Fitzgibbons RJ, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG: Patterns of recurrence after curative resection of carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1992, 174: 27-32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Compton CC, Fielding LP, Burgart LJ, Conley B, Cooper HS, Hamilton SR, Hammond ME, Henson DE, Hutter RV, Nagle R, Nielsen ML, Sargent DJ, Taylor CR, Welton M, Willett C: Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000, 124: 979-994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Winder T, Lenz HJ: Mucinous adenocarcinomas with intra-abdominal dissemination: a review of current therapy. Oncologist. 2010, 15: 836-844. 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0052.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin KE, Dozois RR: Epidemiology of large bowel cancer. World J Surg. 1991, 15: 562-567. 10.1007/BF01789199.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wu CS, Tung SY, Chen PC, Kuo YC: Clinicopathological study of colorectal mucinous carcinoma in Taiwan: a multivariate analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1996, 11: 77-81. 10.1111/j.1440-1746.1996.tb00014.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Umpleby HC, Ranson DL, Williamson RC: Peculiarities of mucinous colorectal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 1985, 72: 715-718. 10.1002/bjs.1800720915.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sugihara K, Kobayashi H, Kato T, Mori T, Mochizuki H, Kameoka S, Shirouzu K, Muto T: Indication and benefit of pelvic sidewall dissection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006, 49: 1663-1672. 10.1007/s10350-006-0714-z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wong RK, Berry S, Spithoff K, Simunovic M, Chan K, Agboola O, Dingle B: Preoperative or postoperative therapy for stage II or III rectal cancer: an updated practice guideline. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2010, 22: 265-271. 10.1016/j.clon.2010.03.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Min BS, Kim NK, Ko YT, Lee KY, Baek SH, Cho CH, Sohn SK: Long-term oncologic results of patients with distal rectal cancer treated by local excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2007, 22: 1325-1330. 10.1007/s00384-007-0339-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kurt M, Ozkan L, Yilmazlar T, Ercan I, Zorluoglu A, Memik F, Engin K: Postoperative concomitant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2005, 52: 1411-1415.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Minsky BD: Adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer–the transatlantic view. Colorectal Dis. 2003, 5: 416-422. 10.1046/j.1463-1318.2003.00504.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sadeghi B, Arvieux C, Glehen O, Beaujard AC, Rivoire M, Baulieux J, Fontaumard E, Brachet A, Caillot JL, Faure JL, Poercheron J, Peix JL, François Y, Vignal J, Gilly FN: Peritoneal carcinomatosis from non-gynecologic malignancies: results of the EVOCAPE 1 multicentric prospective study. Cancer. 2000, 88: 358-363. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000115)88:2<358::AID-CNCR16>3.0.CO;2-O.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Verwaal VJ, van Ruth S, de Bree E, van Sloothen GW, van Tinteren H, Boot H, Zoetmulder FA: Randomized trial of cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy and palliative surgery in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21: 3737-3743. 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.187.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Negri FV, Wotherspoon A, Cunningham D, Norman AR, Chong G, Ross PJ: Mucinous histology predicts for reduced fluorouracil responsiveness and survival in advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2005, 16: 1305-1310. 10.1093/annonc/mdi244.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Catalano V, Loupakis F, Graziano F, Torresi U, Bisonni R, Mari D, Fornaro L, Baldelli AM, Giordani P, Rossi D, Alessandroni P, Giustini L, Silva RR, Falcone A, D’Emidio S, Fedeli SL: Mucinous histology predicts for poor response rate and overall survival of patients with colorectal cancer and treated with first-line oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2009, 100: 881-887. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604955.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Vogelstein B, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR, Kern SE, Preisinger AC, Leppert M, Nakamura Y, White R, Smits AM, Bos JL: Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med. 1988, 319: 525-532. 10.1056/NEJM198809013190901.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Leopoldo S, Lorena B, Cinzia A, Gabriella DC, Angela Luciana B, Renato C, Antonio M, Carlo S, Cristina P, Stefano C, Maurizio T, Luigi R, Cesare B: Two subtypes of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colorectum: clinicopathological and genetic features. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008, 15: 1429-1439. 10.1245/s10434-007-9757-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Numata et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement