Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41230203›Full record

SynthesisOncology reviews2025

A scoping review of TSR analysis in colorectal cancer: implications for automated solutions.

Felix Anne Dikland, Cyrine Fekih, Marius René Jacques Wellenstein, Ricella Souza da Silva, Raquel Machado-Neves, João Fraga, Domingos Oliveira, Diana Montezuma, Isabel Macedo Pinto, Jonathan Woodburn

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oncology reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Felix Anne Dikland *Department of Research and Development, WSK Medical, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Cyrine Fekih *Department of Research and Development, WSK Medical, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Marius René Jacques WellensteinWSK Medical, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ricella Souza da SilvaIPATIMUP Diagnostics, IPATIMUP-Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of Porto University, Porto, Portugal.
Raquel Machado-NevesDepartment of Pathologic Anatomy, Hospital de Matosinhos, Unidade Local de Saúde de Matosinhos, Matosinhos, Portugal.
João FragaResearch and Development Unit, IMP Diagnostics, Porto, Portugal.
Domingos OliveiraResearch and Development Unit, IMP Diagnostics, Porto, Portugal.
Diana MontezumaResearch and Development Unit, IMP Diagnostics, Porto, Portugal.
Isabel Macedo PintoIMP Diagnostics, Porto, Portugal.
Jonathan WoodburnDepartment of Research and Development, WSK Medical, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The tumour-stroma ratio (TSR), which refers to the composition of stromal tissue and tumour epithelium of a malignant lesion, is gaining recognition as a promising biomarker in pathology. In 2018, recommendations for quantifying TSR in colorectal carcinoma were published, yet diverse quantification methods are still in use today. To assess the prognostic value of TSR, evaluate the impact of scoring variations, and explore efforts to automate TSR quantification, a scoping review was conducted. A total of 950 articles were identified through PubMed and Scopus, of which 76 met the inclusion criteria for this review. Of these, 56 employed manual scoring methods, while 20 utilised semi-automated or fully automated TSR quantification techniques. The TSR has been consistently identified as a strong prognostic indicator for disease-free survival. Its association with poor prognosis may be linked to its correlation with metastatic status, perineural invasion, and vascular invasion in stroma-high lesions. Variability in TSR scoring protocols was most evident in the selection of the region of interest and the type of histological specimen, both of which had a direct impact on final TSR scores. Moreover, significant inter-observer variability was observed in manual semi-quantitative TSR assessments, with Kappa scores ranging from 0.42 to 0.88. Automated TSR scoring pipelines have been proposed to standardise scoring protocols and reduce inter-observer variability. Deep learning models have demonstrated promising results, with pixel-wise and patch-wise accuracies exceeding 95%. Even though deep learning approaches have shown high performance, discrepancies remain, as evidenced by Kappa scores ranging from 0.239 to 0.472. In conclusion, the variation in TSR scoring protocols, along with a wide range of inter-observer variability, limits the broader clinical application of TSR. While automated TSR quantification methods show promise, they are still in the early stages, particularly in relation to region of interest selection and stratifying patients into risk categories. As these methods evolve, adjustments to TSR scoring cut-off values may be necessary to improve consistency. This scoping review highlights the prognostic significance of TSR in colorectal carcinoma while emphasizing the challenges posed by variability in scoring methods and the need for further advancements in automated quantification.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecolorectal carcinomacomputational pathologyobserver variabilityprognostic valueprotocol standardisationscoping reviewtumour-stroma ratio

Identifiers

PMID41230203
PMCPMC12603809

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.