Aims The importance of the interaction between tumour cells and neutrophils has recently begun to emerge. However, the significance of tumour-infiltrating neutrophil (TIN) in colorectal carcinomas (CRCs) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic significance of TIN in CRCs.
Methods CRCs were evaluated for TIN and were classified as neutrophil-rich (NR), neutrophil-intermediate (NI) and neutrophil-poor (NP) based on the presence of >15, 5–15 and <5 TIN per 100 tumour cells, respectively. Various clinicopathological parameters were recorded in each case including age, gender, histological grade, tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) stage, tumour location and DNA mismatch repair (MMR) status.
Results Among the 348 CRC cases reviewed, 38 cases were NR, 43 cases were NI and 267 cases were NP. High TIN was associated with higher histological grade (p=0.0222), right-sided tumour location (p=0.0025), advanced TNM stage (p=0.0346) and higher rate of MMR-deficient CRCs (p=0.0027). Patients with NR CRCs had significantly poorer 5-year recurrence-free survival comparing to patients with NI or NP CRCs on Kaplan-Meier analysis (p=0.0001) and high TIN remained an independent risk factor with multivariate analysis (p=0.0137; HR: 1.930, 95% CI: 1.144 to 3.255). NR CRCs are more commonly seen in MMR-deficient than in MMR-proficient CRCs (p=0.0006). Patients with MMR-deficient NR CRCs showed similar 5-year recurrence-free survival compared with MMR-proficient NR CRCs.
Conclusions Our findings reveal that high TIN confers poorer patient prognosis in both MMR-proficient and MMR-deficient CRCs.
- colorectal neoplasms
- rectal neoplasms
- gastrointestinal neoplasms
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
BGR and NP are joint first authors.
Handling editor Runjan Chetty.
Contributors XZ and DJ conceived and designed the initial study. NP and XZ reviewed the slides. BGR, NP, MA, MV and XZ collected the clinicopathological data. YD and MC analysed the data. BGR, NP and XZ drafted and revised the manuscript. All authors edited the manuscript and approved the final version.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.