OLOncology Letters1792-10741792-1082D.A. Spandidos10.3892/ol.2025.14936OL-29-4-14936ArticlesTumor‑stroma ratio as a clinical prognostic factor in colorectal carcinoma: A meta‑analysis of 7,934 patientsShangAn1*YuPengcheng1*LiLiping2HeGe1XuJunyi1Department of General Surgery, The Fourth Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545007, P.R. ChinaDepartment of Pneumology, The Fourth Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545007, P.R. ChinaCorrespondence to: Professor Junyi Xu, Department of General Surgery, The Fourth Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, 165 Heping Street, Liunan, Liuzhou, Guangxi 545007, P.R. China, E-mail: apm70allen@126.com twt2321@163.com
The tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) has been regarded as an important factor associated with tumor metastasis, based on the ‘seed and soil’ theory, which may have guiding significance for the selection of chemotherapy regimens. Therefore, a high TSR may be a new risk factor for tumor recurrence in patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC). The present study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of TSR in CRC, especially for the computer-calculated TSR. A comprehensive literature retrieval was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies published up to December 13, 2023. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the prognostic value of the TSR in CRC. A total of 21 studies published between 2007 and 2023 were included in the present meta-analysis. The combined analysis demonstrated that a high TSR was significantly associated with worse overall survival (OS; HR=1.84; 95% CI, 1.44–2.34; P<0.001), disease-free survival (DFS; HR=1.85; 95% CI, 1.27–2.68; P<0.001), cancer-specific survival (CSS; H=1.97; 95% CI, 1.46–2.65; P<0.001) and recurrence free survival (RFS; HR=1.55; 95% CI, 1.25–1.92; P<0.001) in patients with CRC. Moreover, an elevated computer-calculated TSR was also associated with poor OS (HR=1.89; 95% CI, 1.48–2.40; P<0.001) and DFS (HR=1.85; 95% CI, 1.27–2.68; P<0.001). However, a high TSR was not associated with poor OS in patients with stage I CRC (HR=1.01; 95% CI, 0.48–2.14; P=0.97). In conclusion, the results of the present meta-analysis indicate that a high TSR is associated with poor OS, DFS, CSS and RFS in patients with CRC, especially for those with stage II–III. In addition, TSR calculated by computer using whole-slide images may also be an effective prognostic marker for OS and DFS in patients with CRC.
colorectal cancermeta-analysisprognosisrisk factorstumor-stroma ratioGuangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Health Committee self-funded projectZ2016176The present study was funded by the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Health Committee self-funded project (grant no. Z2016176).Introduction
Globally, colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer and also the third highest cause of tumor-associated mortalities, representing a serious health hazard to the population (1). It is estimated that CRC incidence and mortality will increase globally by 2035, which may be related to risk factors including cigarette smoking, physical inactivity, red meat consumption and obesity (2). Although surgical resection is still the most effective treatment for patients diagnosed with CRC, chemotherapy serves an important postoperative role (3). Currently, oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for stage III and high-risk stage II patients with CRC who are undergoing radical resection, which can markedly prolong overall survival (OS) (4). Currently, T stage 4, poor histological differentiation, vascular infiltration, perineural invasion, preoperative intestinal obstruction, tumor perforation, incisal positive, insufficient distance for cut edge and examining <12 lymph nodes are considered to be high-risk factors for tumor recurrence; however, a high tumor-stroma ratio (TSR) is not (5). The TSR has been regarded as an essential factor associated with for tumor metastasis based on the theory of ‘seed (carcinoma cell) and soil (tumor stroma)’ (6). Research suggests that during cancer progression, normal stromal compartments transform due to increased cancer-associated fibroblasts, which were generated from normal fibroblasts and epithelial cells in response to platelet-derived growth factor, fibroblast growth factor and transforming growth factor-β. Crosstalk between signaling molecules contributes to the production of a number of cytokines and growth factors, creating an environment conducive to tumor growth and invasion (7,8). Therefore, the TSR may be an improved prognostic predictor for CRC, which can guide the selection of the chemotherapy regimen.
Several studies have suggested a potential prognostic role of the TSR in CRC; however, controversy remains regarding its use (9,10). Although a meta-analysis focusing on the prognostic value of the TSR in patients with CRC was previously performed, it had a small sample size (11). Furthermore, the application of visual assessment (‘eyeballing’), systematic point counting and tissue section [whole-slide images (WSI)] scanning has improved the accuracy of TSR calculations (12). Therefore, computer-aided quantification of tumor-stroma is more credible than manual estimation. However, there is no meta-analysis on the prognostic value of computer-aided quantification of tumor-stroma in CRC, to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, the current study aimed to perform a meta-analysis of all eligible published studies to evaluate the prognostic value of the TSR in CRC, especially for the TSR calculated by computer.
Materials and methods
The present meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; registration no. CRD42022364340).
Search strategy
The meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (13). A comprehensive search strategy was developed to screen eligible peer-reviewed articles, associated with several specific key words: ‘Colorectal cancer’, ‘tumor stromal ratio’ and ‘prognosis’. Furthermore, the free text associated with the key words was retrieved from the PubMed MeSH-database, which was used to form search strings with key words (colorectal neoplasms, colorectal tumors, colorectal cancer, colorectal OR carcinomas, tumor stroma, stroma score, tumour-stroma ratio, carcinoma-stromal ratio, tumor-stroma proportion, tumour stroma percentage, proportion of tumour cells, stromal part of adenocarcinomas and high amount of stroma) to allow for a thorough search of the databases [Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com), PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Cochrane (https://www.cochranelibrary.com) and Embase (https://www.embase.com)] for all relevant studies. The last search was updated on December 13, 2023. Research lists of articles passing the initial screening process were also used as auxiliary sources to improve the search strategy. The reference lists of the collected studies were manually searched to further increase the robustness of the search results.
Study selection
All relevant articles were screened by two independent authors (AS and PCY) according to the included criteria after blind screening of titles and abstracts. All studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. If a disagreement occurred, a third co-author (JYX) was consulted to carefully scrutinize the papers and decide whether a study was to be included in the final research selection.
Inclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria were as follows: i) Patients diagnosed with CRC who underwent radical resection; ii) assessment of the association of the TSR and survival data; iii) evaluation of survival-associated outcomes, such as OS and disease-free survival (DFS); and iv) studies published in English.
Exclusion criteria
The exclusion criteria were as follows: i) Non-research references, such as case reports, letters or systematic reviews; ii) studies with duplicate data; iii) key information extraction was not available; and iv) research using non-human models.
Data extraction
The data extracted from the tables and figures of the selected articles were tabulated in Microsoft Excel 16.18 software (Microsoft Corporation). In the present meta-analysis, the extracted data elements were as follows: First author/s, publishing year, study design, sample size, cohort characteristics of the study (such as age and sex), tumor position, estimated method of determining the TSR, treatment, histopathological stage, cut-off value, follow-up time and hazard ratio (HR) estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) for OS, DFS, relapse-free survival (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS).
Quality assessment
Quality assessment of the final selection articles was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) by two independent authors (GH and LPL). The NOS contains three parts: Selection (0–4 points); comparability (0–2 points); and outcome assessment (0–3 points). A study was considered to be high-quality if the scores were >6.
Statistical analysis
Stata software version 15.1 for Mac (StataCorp LP) was used to perform the present meta-analysis to generate forest plots by evaluating the HRs and associated 95% CIs of OS, DFS, DSS and RFS from the included articles directly or estimated using the methods by Parmar et al (14). To assess the results of meta-analysis it is important to determine the effect size and its impact (15). Therefore, Cochran's Q-test and Higgins' I2 statistic were used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the pooled results. Significant heterogeneity was considered if P<0.1 for the Q-test or I2>50% (16). According to the recommendations provided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (https://training.cochrane.org/handbook), the choice between a fixed-effects and a random-effects meta-analysis should never be made on the basis of a statistical test for heterogeneity. Therefore, a random-effects model was adopted in the present meta-analysis regardless of the I2 values found.
To assess the potential source of heterogeneity among studies, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were applied utilizing variables such as ethnicity, cancer position, carcinoma stage, treatment, TSR calculation method and regression analysis type.
Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the credibility of outcomes in the present meta-analysis. To assess the publication bias of selection literature, visual inspection of the Begg's funnel plot and Egger's test were performed, and P<0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.
ResultsSearch results and study characteristics
A total of 4,708 articles were identified from the database searches, with 3,811 studies obtained after removing duplicate records. Subsequently, a further 3,716 studies were eliminated by reviewing the titles and abstract according to the PICOS principle (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study framework; http://training.cochrane.org/handbook). A total of 74 studies were then excluded after the articles were read [non-research references (n=29); research with duplicate data (n=37); key information extraction unavailable (n=5); and non-human research (n=3)]. Finally, a total of 21 studies published between August 13, 2007 and January 15, 2023 were included in the present meta-analysis (9,10,12,17–34). Notably, the study by Zhao et al (33) contained two independent sub-datasets, which were considered two independent studies in the present article. Therefore, there were 22 studies included in the present meta-analysis (Fig. 1). Characteristics of the 22 eligible studies are summarized in Table I. Among the 22 included articles, there was a total of 7,934 patients, with the number of patients in individual studies ranging from 88 to 1,212. A total of nine studies were performed in the Netherlands, seven in China, two in the United Kingdom, and one in Germany, Turkey and Egypt, respectively. Moreover, eight studies included patients with colon carcinoma, 12 studies with patients with CRC and one study with patients with rectal cancer. The prognostic value of the TSR was assessed in the eligible studies: 16 studies evaluated the association between the TSR and OS; eight studies assessed the association of the TSR and DFS; three studies evaluated the association between the TSR and cancer-specific survival (CSS); and four studies assessed the prognostic impact of the TSR on RFS. The cut-off values ranged from 40.0–65.5%. A total of 19 studies were retrospective and two were prospective trials. The NOS scores of all studies ranged from 6–9 (Table I), which indicates that they are of a high quality (NOS scores ≥6).
Prognostic impact of the TSR on OS in patients with CRC
A total of 16 studies provided data from 6,134 patients for the OS analysis (9,10,17,19,20,22–25,28–34). A random-effects model was performed with a significant heterogeneity detected in these data (I2=77.5%; P<0.001; Table II). It was demonstrated that an elevated TSR predicted a decreased OS with a combined HR of 1.84 (95% CI, 1.44–2.34; P<0.001; Fig. 2A). Subgroup analysis by ethnicity indicated that the TSR was a negative predictor of overall survival both in Asian (HR=2.17; 95% CI, 1.44–3.28; P<0.001) and Caucasian populations (HR=1.58; 95% CI, 1.20–2.10; P=0.001). When the TSR estimation method was considered, both computer-aided calculations (HR=1.88; 95% CI, 1.48–2.40; P<0.001) and artificial estimations (HR=1.82; 95% CI, 1.34–2.48; P<0.001) of the TSR were negative prognostic factors. When performing subgroup analyses stratified by analysis method (multivariate analysis), an increased TSR was revealed to be a negative predictor for OS (HR=1.81; 95% CI, 1.41–2.32; P<0.001). However, there was no statistical significance for the univariate analysis (HR=1.80; 95% CI, 0.65–4.99; P=0.26). Considering different cancer types, the TSR was a negative prognostic marker for colon cancer (HR=1.75; 95% CI, 1.36–1.26; P<0.001) and CRC (HR=1.90; 95% CI, 1.27–2.83; P=0.002). Furthermore, an increased TSR predicted a worse outcome both in patients undergoing surgery only (HR=2.21; 95% CI, 1.24–3.96; P=0.008) and surgery + chemotherapy (HR=1.56; 95% CI, 1.33–1.83; P<0.001). However, although an elevated TSR had a negative prognostic value for patients with stage II–III CRC (HR=1.60; 95% CI, 1.33–1.93; P<0.001), this was not demonstrated for those with stage I (H=1.01; 95% CI, 0.48–2.14; P=0.97).
Prognostic role of the TSR for DFS in CRC
A total of nine studies provided data from 3,962 patients for the DFS analysis (10,12,20,21,24,25,28,29,34). The combined data demonstrated that an increased TSR was associated with worse DFS for patients with CRC (HR=1.83; 95% CI, 1.50–2.22; P<0.001; Fig. 2B). Moreover, heterogeneity existed among the studies (I2=51.2%; P=0.037). A high TSR was associated with poor DFS irrespective of ethnicity (HR=1.73; 95% CI, 1.08–2.78; P=0.022 vs. HR=1.85, 95% CI, 1.47–2.32; P<0.001), analysis method (HR=3.20, 95% CI, 1.57–6.53; P=0.001 vs. HR=1.64, 95% CI, 1.43–1.87; P<0.001) and cancer type (HR=2.22, 95% CI, 1.42–3.48; P<0.001 vs. HR=1.56, 95% CI, 1.32–183; P<0.001 vs. HR=2.05, 95% CI, 1.11–3.78; P=0.022). Moreover, a high TSR also predicted poor DFS in patients receiving postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (HR=1.64; 95% CI, 1.44–1.88; P<0.001) and in patients with stage II and III CRC (HR=1.64; 95% CI, 1.42–1.90; P<0.001). Notably, an increased TSR calculated by computer was also associated with worse DFS in patients with CRC (HR=1.85; 95% CI, 1.27–2.68; P<0.001) (Table II).
Prognostic role of TSR for CSS and RFS in patients with CRC
A total of three studies reported the association of CSS and the TSR, with 820 patients included (12,22,27). The combined data indicated that an elevated TSR was associated with worse CSS in patients with CRC (HR=2.00; 95% CI, 1.38–2.89; P<0.001; Fig. 2C). No significant heterogeneity was detected (I2=33.3%; P=0.22). Moreover, the data from 651 patients extracted from four studies were used to perform the meta-analysis focusing on the prognostic role of the TSR for RFS in patients with CRC (17,18,26,31). A random-effects model was adopted, although no significant heterogeneity among the studies was detected (I2=15.3%; P=0.315; Table II). Pooled HR from the eligible studies was demonstrated to be 1.57 (95% CI, 1.22–2.02; P<0.001), indicating that a high TSR predicted a poor RFS (Fig. 2D). Subgroup analysis was performed based on ethnicity and cancer type, which revealed that a high TSR was associated with worse RFS for Asian patients (HR=1.59, 95% CI, 1.26–2.01 P<0.001) or patients with colon cancer (HR=1.47, 95% CI, 1.16–1.87 P=0.001) (Table II).
Meta-regression analysis
The results of the meta-regression analysis demonstrated that publication year (P=0.29), follow-up time (P=0.58), analysis method (P=0.63), treatment (P=0.72), cancer type (P=0.87), tumor stage (P=0.17) and ethnicity (P=0.29) did not contribute to the source of heterogeneity (Table SI).
Sensitivity analysis
To assess the reliability of the pooled HR of OS, DFS, CSS and RFS, a sensitivity analysis was performed (Fig. 3). There was no significant change in overall HR when each eligible study from the present meta-analysis was removed sequentially. Thus, the reliability of the results of the present study was confirmed.
Publication bias
Begg's funnel and Egger's test were performed to detect potential publication bias, with no significant bias demonstrated in studies on the TSR with respect to OS (Begg's P=0.266; Egger's P=0.310; Fig. 4A and B), DFS (Begg's P=0.076; Egger's P=0.328; Fig. 4C and D), CSS (Begg's P=1.000; Egger's P=0.574; Fig. 4E and F) or RFS (Begg's P=0.308; Egger's P=0.368; Fig. 4G and H).
Association between the TSR and clinicopathological features
Only 7/21 studies evaluated the relationship between the TSR and clinicopathological features (Table III) (9,17–19,21,23,34). A high TSR was reported to be markedly associated with increased T stage in the studies by Fu et al (19) and Huijbers et al (21). Furthermore, these two studies reported that patients with CRC with a high TSR had a higher probability of lymphatic metastasis than those with a low TSR (19,21); however, in the study by Aboelnasr et al (17), the conclusion was reversed. Unfortunately, it was not possible to generate a pooled odds ratios (OR) value through meta-analysis for these results as they were produced using the χ2 test.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, the present research is the first meta-analysis to assess the prognostic value of the TSR on OS, DFS, CSS and RFS in CRC. As a novel prognostic marker, the TSR can be calculated directly according to a systematic evaluation process using pathological sections by pathologists (35). Furthermore, with the progression of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), the image analysis field has been revolutionized. CNNs have been used to classify medical images and detect TSR in histopathological images (36). Fully automated TSR assessments have also been applied on WSIs generated through scanning the selected hematoxylin and eosin-stained tissue sections using digital Whole Slide Scanning software (33). Therefore, the prognostic value of the tumor-stroma percentage calculated using CNNs in CRC was more objective.
The present meta-analysis collected data from 21 studies with 7,934 patients to assess the prognostic role of the TSR in CRC. Significant prognostic efficacy in different subgroups suggested that the TSR was a robust prognostic marker for long-term survival outcomes, including OS, DFS, CSS and RFS. Furthermore, computer-calculated TSR using WSIs was also an effective prognostic marker for OS and DFS. However, although an elevated TSR was associated with a negative prognosis in patients with stage II–III CRC (HR=1.60; 95% CI, 1.33–1.93; P<0.001), it was not associated with a negative prognosis in those with stage I CRC (HR=1.01; 95% CI, 0.48–2.14; P=0.97).
The tumor microenvironment has attracted attention in the field of carcinoma immunology. Neoplastic cells are not only found in the tumor itself, but also in the surrounding stroma, including immune cells, signaling molecules, the extracellular matrix (ECM) and fibroblasts (37). Several inflammatory cells and mediators have been reported to have complex interactions with tumor cells (38). Stromal cells drive tumor progression and invasion through modulation of the ECM, secretion of soluble factors and stimulation of cell migration (39). Stromal cells, considered a scaffold for tumor cells, provide survival signals such as C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 12 and insulin growth factor, and lay down extracellular elements including glycoprotein, integrins, collagen and proteoglycans (7). ECM deposition increases tumor-stromal density and tension, which may generate a protective environment for cancer cells, preventing the efficacy of anticancer agents such as biologics and chemotherapy (7,39) Furthermore, several studies evaluating the association between tumor-stroma percentage and clinicopathological features in CRC have been published over previous years, which have reported that a high TSR predicts worse pathological outcomes, such as tumor budding, vessel invasion, lymphatic invasion and microsatellite instability (18,20,23). Therefore, a high tumor-stromal percentage may predict a poor survival outcome. In addition, the process of assessing the TSR is inexpensive, easily performed and reproducible (35), rendering the TSR a promising marker to predict the survival outcome of CRC in clinical practice.
Several studies has reported the relationship between the TSR and clinicopathological features previously (9,17–19,21,23,34). Unfortunately, the OR for the association between a high TSR and tumor invasion, lymphatic metastasis and poor differentiation were not available among the studies. Therefore, a meta-analysis on the association between the TSR and tumor classification or stage classification could not be performed. Moreover, among the included studies, there were none that reported the relationship between the TSR and genetic mutations. Therefore, it is necessary perform further research exploring the association between the TSR and tissue classification, stage classification, treatment selection or genetic mutations.
The prognostic role of the TSR in solid tumors has been reported in several meta-analyses in: i) A meta-analysis of nine studies focusing on the clinical significance of the TSR in head and neck cancers indicates that a high TSR is associated with worse DFS or CSS in patients with head and neck cancers (40); ii) a meta-analysis of 12 studies assessing the prognostic value of the TSR in women with breast cancer reports that a high TSR predicts poor survival in women with breast cancer (41); iii) a meta-analysis of data from 2,031 patients with non-small cell lung cancer indicates that stroma richness may be a predictor of poor survival in patients with lung squamous cell carcinoma, but a predictor of improved survival in patients with lung adenocarcinoma (42); and iv) a meta-analysis of the prognostic value of the TSR in rectal cancer, with data from 5,408 patients, demonstrated that a high TSR is notably associated with worse survival outcomes (43).
The present meta-analysis evaluated the prognostic value of the TSR in CRC; however, necessary subgroup analysis was not performed; and a meta-analysis of 13 studies focusing on the impact of the TSR on the prognosis of CRC indicated that a high TSR was associated with worse DFS or OS in patients with CRC (44). Although subgroup analysis was performed for tumor stage in the meta-analysis, it was not performed for the TSR estimation method, analysis method, ethnicity or cancer type. Furthermore, the prognostic value of the TSR for CSS and RFS was not available in the meta-analysis by Gao et al (44), therefore, the conclusions are incomplete. The present meta-analysis demonstrated the prognostic efficacy of the TSR for OS, DFS, RFS and CSS in CRC, which is in-line with previous findings with other cancer types. In addition, the present study also revealed that the TSR calculated by computer using WSIs was also an effective prognostic marker for OS and DFS. Furthermore, the present meta-analysis demonstrated that an elevated TSR holds a negative prognostic value for patients with stage II–III CRC, but not for those with stage I CRC. Lastly, the references included in the present meta-analysis was quite abundant, including 22 studies with 7,934 patients.
Based on the results of the present meta-analysis and other published studies, the TSR may assist in the determination of cancer prognosis and help develop treatment regimens for patients with CRC. For example, patients with CRC with a high TSR may benefit more from postoperative chemotherapy of bevacizumab-capecitabine + oxaliplatin (XELOX) than XELOX alone. However, administering postoperative chemotherapy of bevacizumab-XELOX may lead to a worse OS in patients with CRC with a low TSR (34). Moreover, although patients with CRC with a high TSR may benefit from bevacizumab-dependent adjuvant chemotherapy, whether the patient benefits from other chemotherapy regimens is still unclear (45). Furthermore, although the present meta-analysis demonstrated that an increased TSR predicted a worse outcome both in patients undergoing surgery alone and surgery + chemotherapy, whether patients with CRC with a high TSR benefit from chemotherapy was still unclear. Additionally, a meta-analysis focusing on the association between the TSR and treatment selection could be not performed due to a lack of adequate data. Therefore, further investigations focusing on the treatment of patients with CRC with a high TSR are needed to explore more efficient postoperative chemotherapy regimens.
Although the present research is the first meta-analysis to assess the prognostic value of the TSR on OS, DFS, CSS and RFS in CRC, to the best of our knowledge, there are also several limitations. First, most of the eligible studies adopted a retrospective design, which led to heterogeneity among studies as the selection criteria could not be strictly controlled. Second, several HRs were extracted from univariate analyses performed without consideration of confounding factors, which may have caused an overestimation of effect sizes. Third, the definition of the TSR cut-off values in the selected studies was inconsistent, which could cause bias in the results.
In conclusion, the findings of the present meta-analysis indicated that a higher TSR was associated with poor OS, DFS, CSS and RFS in patients with CRC, especially for those with stages II–IIIs. In addition, a TSR calculated by computer using WSIs was also an effective prognostic marker for OS and DFS in patients with CRC. Therefore, the TSR may serve an important role in developing treatment regimens for CRC; however, further prospective studies are needed to validate the results of the present study due to its limitations.
Supplementary Material
Supporting Data
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials
The data generated in the present study may be requested from the corresponding author.
Authors' contributions
AS, PCY, LPL, GH and JYX collected and extracted the data and performed the quality assessment. AS, PCY, LPL and GH analyzed the data. AS and JYX conceived and designed the present study and wrote the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. AS and JYX confirm the authenticity of all the raw data.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
ReferencesJiaoSLiCHaoQMiaoHZhangLLiLZhouZVGLL4 targets a TCF4-TEAD4 complex to coregulate Wnt and Hippo signalling in colorectal cancerNat Commun814058201710.1038/ncomms1405828051067AraghiMSoerjomataramIJenkinsMBrierleyJMorrisEBrayFArnoldMGlobal trends in colorectal cancer mortality: Projections to the year 2035Int J Cancer14429923000201910.1002/ijc.3205530536395YangKGaoKHuGWenYLinCLiXCTGF enhances resistance to 5-FU-mediating cell apoptosis through FAK/MEK/ERK signal pathway in colorectal cancerOnco Targets Ther972857295201610.2147/OTT.S10892927942222CrawfordNSalvucciMHellwigCTLincolnFAMooneyREO'ConnorCLPrehnJHLongleyDBRehmMSimulating and predicting cellular and in vivo responses of colon cancer to combined treatment with chemotherapy and IAP antagonist Birinapant/TL32711Cell Death Differ2519521466201810.1038/s41418-018-0082-y29500433BensonABVenookAPAl-HawaryMMArainMAChenYJCiomborKKCohenSCooperHSDemingDFarkasLColon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncologyJ Natl Compr Canc Netw19329359202110.6004/jnccn.2021.001233724754LangleyRRFidlerIJThe seed and soil hypothesis revisited-the role of tumor-stroma interactions in metastasis to different organsInt J Cancer12825272535201110.1002/ijc.2603121365651PietrasKOstmanAHallmarks of cancer: Interactions with the tumor stromaExp Cell Res31613241331201010.1016/j.yexcr.2010.02.04520211171QuailDFJoyceJAMicroenvironmental regulation of tumor progression and metastasisNat Med1914231437201310.1038/nm.339424202395DangHvan PeltGWHaasnootKJCBackesYEliasSGSeerdenTCJSchwartzMPSpanierBWMde Vos Tot Nederveen CappelWHvan BergeijkJDTumour-stroma ratio has poor prognostic value in non-pedunculated T1 colorectal cancer: A multi-centre case-cohort studyUnited European Gastroenterol J92050640620975324202033210982ZhaoZZhangXLiZGaoYGuanXJiangZLiuZYangMChenHMaXAutomated assessment of DNA ploidy, chromatin organization, and stroma fraction to predict prognosis and adjuvant therapy response in patients with stage II colorectal carcinomaAm J Cancer Res1161196132202135018246ZhangRSongWWangKZouSTumor-stroma ratio (TSR) as a potential novel predictor of prognosis in digestive system cancers: A meta-analysisClin Chim Acta4726468201710.1016/j.cca.2017.07.00328729135GeessinkOGFBaidoshviliAKlaaseJMEhteshami BejnordiBLitjensGJSvan PeltGWMeskerWENagtegaalIDCiompiFvan der LaakJAWMComputer aided quantification of intratumoral stroma yields an independent prognosticator in rectal cancerCell Oncol (Dordr)42331341201910.1007/s13402-019-00429-z30825182MoherDShamseerLClarkeMGhersiDLiberatiAPetticrewMShekellePStewartLAPRISMA-P GroupPreferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statementSyst Rev41201510.1186/2046-4053-4-125554246ParmarMKTorriVStewartLExtracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpointsStat Med1728152834199810.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::AID-SIM110>3.0.CO;2-89921604JayarajRKumarasamyCSabarimuruganSBaxiSDiagnostic and prognostic value of microRNAs for cancers-strategies and approaches to improve the clinical utilityJ Cancer1012521253201910.7150/jca.2858130854134DerSimonianRLairdNMeta-analysis in clinical trialsControl Clin Trials7177188198610.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-23802833AboelnasrLSEl-RebeyHSMohamedAAbdouAGThe prognostic impact of tumor border configuration, tumor budding and tumor stroma ratio in colorectal carcinomaTurk Patoloji Derg398393202335642343FanSCuiXZhengLPrognostic value of desmoplastic stromal reaction, tumor budding and tumor-stroma ratio in stage II colorectal cancerJ Gastrointest Oncol1329032921202210.21037/jgo-22-75836636094FuMChenDLuoFLiMWangYChenJLiALiuSAssociation of the tumour stroma percentage in the preoperative biopsies with lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancerBr J Cancer122388396202010.1038/s41416-019-0671-731787749HuijbersATollenaarRAv PeltGWZeestratenECDuttonSMcConkeyCCDomingoESmitVTMidgleyRWarrenBFThe proportion of tumor-stroma as a strong prognosticator for stage II and III colon cancer patients: Validation in the VICTOR trialAnn Oncol24179185201310.1093/annonc/mds24622865778HuijbersAvan PeltGWKerrRSJohnstoneECTollenaarRAEMKerrDJMeskerWEThe value of additional bevacizumab in patients with high-risk stroma-high colon cancer. A study within the QUASAR2 trial, an open-label randomized phase 3 trialJ Surg Oncol11710431048201810.1002/jso.2499829448309HynesSOColemanHGKellyPJIrwinSO'NeillRFGrayRTMcGreadyCDunnePDMcQuaidSJamesJABack to the future: Routine morphological assessment of the tumour microenvironment is prognostic in stage II/III colon cancer in a large population-based studyHistopathology711226201710.1111/his.1318128165633LiTYuZYangYFuZChenZLiQZhangKLuoZQiuZHuangCRapid multi-dynamic algorithm for gray image analysis of the stroma percentage on colorectal cancerJ Cancer1245614573202110.7150/jca.5888734149920LiYLiaoLKongLJiangWTangJHanKHouZZhangCZhouCZhangLDNA ploidy and stroma predicted the risk of recurrence in low-risk stage III colorectal cancerClin Transl Oncol25218225202310.1007/s12094-022-02930-836076121MeskerWEJunggeburtJMSzuhaiKde HeerPMorreauHTankeHJTollenaarRAThe carcinoma-stromal ratio of colon carcinoma is an independent factor for survival compared to lymph node status and tumor stageCell Oncol29387398200717726261MillerSBauerSSchrempfMSchenkirschGProbstAMärklBMartinBSemiautomatic analysis of tumor proportion in colon cancer: Lessons from a validation studyPathol Res Pract227153634202110.1016/j.prp.2021.15363434628263ParkJHMcMillanDCEdwardsJHorganPGRoxburghCSComparison of the prognostic value of measures of the tumor inflammatory cell infiltrate and tumor-associated stroma in patients with primary operable colorectal cancerOncoimmunology5e1098801201610.1080/2162402X.2015.109880127141369SandbergTPSweereIvan PeltGWPutterHVermeulenLKuppenPJTollenaarRAEMMeskerWEPrognostic value of low CDX2 expression in colorectal cancers with a high stromal content-a short reportCell Oncol (Dordr)42397403201910.1007/s13402-019-00436-030847807SmitMAvan PeltGWTerpstraVPutterHTollenaarRAEMMeskerWEvan KriekenJHJMTumour-stroma ratio outperforms tumour budding as biomarker in colon cancer: A cohort studyInt J Colorectal Dis3627292737202110.1007/s00384-021-04023-434533595VogelaarFJvan PeltGWvan LeeuwenAMWillemsJMTollenaarRALiefersGJMeskerWEAre disseminated tumor cells in bone marrow and tumor-stroma ratio clinically applicable for patients undergoing surgical resection of primary colorectal cancer? The Leiden MRD studyCell Oncol (Dordr)39537544201610.1007/s13402-016-0296-227613548ZenginMTumour budding and tumour stroma ratio are reliable predictors for death and recurrence in elderly stage I colon cancer patientsPathol Res Pract215152635201910.1016/j.prp.2019.15263531564570ZhangYLiuYQiuXYanBConcurrent comparison of the prognostic values of tumor budding, tumor stroma ratio, tumor infiltrating pattern and Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte ratio in colorectal cancer patientsTechnol Cancer Res Treat2015330338211045826202110.1177/1533033821104582634658263ZhaoKLiZYaoSWangYWuXXuZWuLHuangYLiangCLiuZArtificial intelligence quantified tumour-stroma ratio is an independent predictor for overall survival in resectable colorectal cancerEBioMedicine61103054202010.1016/j.ebiom.2020.10305433039706ZunderSMvan PeltGWGelderblomHJMancaoCPutterHTollenaarRAMeskerWEPredictive potential of tumour-stroma ratio on benefit from adjuvant bevacizumab in high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancerBr J Cancer119164169201810.1038/s41416-018-0083-029755119van PeltGWKjær-FrifeldtSvan KriekenJHJMAl DieriRMorreauHTollenaarRAEMSørensenFBMeskerWEScoring the tumor-stroma ratio in colon cancer: Procedure and recommendationsVirchows Arch473405412201810.1007/s00428-018-2408-z30030621Ehteshami BejnordiBVetaMJohannes van DiestPvan GinnekenBKarssemeijerNLitjensGvan der LaakJAWMthe CAMELYON16 ConsortiumHermsenMMansonQFdiagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for detection of lymph node metastases in women with breast cancerJAMA31821992210201710.1001/jama.2017.1458529234806WangMZhaoJZhangLWeiFLianYWuYGongZZhangSZhouJCaoKRole of tumor microenvironment in tumorigenesisJ Cancer8761773201710.7150/jca.1764828382138ElinavENowarskiRThaissCAHuBJinCFlavellRAInflammation-induced cancer: Crosstalk between tumours, immune cells and microorganismsNat Rev Cancer13759771201310.1038/nrc361124154716ArnethBTumor MicroenvironmentMedicina (Kaunas)5615201910.3390/medicina5601001531906017AlmangushAAlabiROTroianoGColettaRDSaloTPirinenMMäkitieAALeivoIClinical significance of tumor-stroma ratio in head and neck cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysisBMC Cancer21480202110.1186/s12885-021-08222-833931044JiangPChenYLiuBPrognostic efficacy of tumor-stroma ratio in women with breast cancer: A Meta-analysis of cohort studiesFront Oncol11731409202110.3389/fonc.2021.73140934976792ZhangXMaHZhangLLiFPredictive role of Tumor-stroma ratio for survival of patients with Non-small cell lung cancer: A Meta-analysisPathol Oncol Res271610021202110.3389/pore.2021.161002135132307ZhuYJinZQianYShenYWangZPrognostic value of tumor-stroma ratio in rectal cancer: A systematic review and Meta-analysisFront Oncol11685570202110.3389/fonc.2021.68557034123856GaoJShenZDengZMeiLImpact of Tumor-stroma ratio on the prognosis of colorectal cancer: A systematic reviewFront Oncol11738080202110.3389/fonc.2021.73808034868930SullivanLPachecoRRKmeidMChenALeeHTumor stroma ratio and its significance in locally advanced colorectal cancerCurr Oncol2932323241202210.3390/curroncol2905026335621653
Flow diagram of the study selection process.
Forest plots of the relationship between the tumor-stroma ratio and survival in patients with colorectal carcinoma. (A) Overall survival. (B) Disease-free survival. (C) Cancer-specific survival. (D) Recurrence free survival. CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.
Sensitivity analysis of the effect of the tumor-stroma ratio on survival in patients with colorectal cancer. (A) Overall survival. (B) Disease-free survival. (C) Cancer-specific survival. (D) Recurrence-free survival.
Publication bias tested by Begg's and Egger's tests. (A) Begg's test (P=0.266) and (B) Egger's test (P=0.310) for overall survival. (C) Begg's test (P=0.076) and (D) Egger's test (P=0.328) for disease-free survival. (E) Begg's test (P=1.000) and (F) Egger's test (P=0.574) for cancer-specific survival. (G) Begg's test (P=0.308) and (H) Egger's test (P=0.368) for recurrence-free survival. SE, standard error; HR, hazard ratio.
Major features of the studies included in the present meta-analysis.
Subgroup analysis of pooled hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between the tumor-stroma ratio and overall survival, disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival and recurrence free survival in patients with colorectal cancer.