[en] The VEGF family of ligands and receptors are intimately involved in tumor angiogenesis, lymphangiogenesis and metastasis. The evaluation of VEGF ligand/receptor ratios may provide a more profound understanding of the involvement of these proteins in colorectal tumour progression. The aim of this study was to elucidate the role of the VEGF ligand/receptor ratios on tumour progression and metastasis in patients with mismatch repair-proficient colorectal cancer. Immunohistochemistry for VEGF-A, VEGF-B, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, VEGFR1, VEGFR2 and VEGF3 was carried out on 387 mismatch repair-proficient colorectal cancers using a tissue microarray. Evaluation of immunoreactivity was performed semi-quantitatively and the ligand/receptor expression ratio was obtained. An increased VEGF-A/VEGFR1 ratio, VEGF-A and VEGFR1 was linked to the presence of peritumoral lymphocytic inflammation at the invasive front (p = 0.032; p = 0.005; p = 0.032, respectively). VEGFR1 expression was related to poorer outcome in multivariable analysis with pT stage, pN stage, vascular invasion, and post-operative therapy. A higher ratio of VEGF-A/VEGFR2 was linked to advanced TNM stage (p = 0.005) while VEGF-A and VEGFR2 were elevated in tumours with an infiltrating tumour growth pattern (p = 0.006; p = 0.014; p = 0.006). No effect of VEGF-A/VEGFR2, VEGF-A or VEGFR2 on survival time was noted. Our findings highlight an involvement of VEGF-A, VEGR1 and VEGFR2 in events occurring at the invasive tumour front and a potential prognostic role of VEGFR1 expression in mismatch repair-proficient colorectal cancers. The VEGF-A ligand to VEGFR1 or VEGFR2 ratio may represent an alternative evaluation system for identifying patients with poorer clinical outcome

[en] Background: The current proposed model of colorectal tumorigenesis is based primarily on CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), microsatellite instability (MSI), KRAS, BRAF, and methylation status of 0-6-Methylguanine DNA Methyltransferase (MGMT) and classifies tumors into five subgroups. The aim of this study is to validate this molecular classification and test its prognostic relevance. Methods: Three hundred two patients were included in this study. Molecular analysis was performed for five CIMP-related promoters (CRABP1, MLH1, p16INK4a, CACNA1G, NEUROG1), MGMT, MSI, KRAS, and BRAF. Methylation in at least 4 promoters or in one to three promoters was considered CIMP-high and CIMP-low (CIMP-H/L), respectively. Results: CIMP-H, CIMP-L, and CIMP-negative were found in 7.1, 43, and 49.9% cases, respectively. One hundred twenty-three tumors (41%) could not be classified into any one of the proposed molecular subgroups, including 107 CIMP-L, 14 CIMP-H, and two CIMP-negative cases. The 10 year survival rate for CIMP-high patients [22.6% (95%CI: 7–43)] was significantly lower than for CIMP-L or CIMP-negative (p = 0.0295). Only the combined analysis of BRAF and CIMP (negative versus L/H) led to distinct prognostic subgroups. Conclusion: Although CIMP status has an effect on outcome, our results underline the need for standardized definitions of low- and high-level CIMP, which clearly hinders an effective prognostic and molecular classification of colorectal cancer.