ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2026
Comparison and analysis of the immune landscape at the tumour invasion front in patients with pMMR/MSI-H and pMMR/MSS colorectal cancer.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to compare and analyse the immune landscape at the tumour invasion front in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) and deficient mismatch repair (dMMR).
methodsA total of 51 patients with CRC were included, comprising 32 patients with pMMR and 19 patients with dMMR. Immunohistochemistry, fluorescence PCR and capillary electrophoresis were used to detect the expression status of MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 proteins to identify patients with pMMR/MSI-H and pMMR/MSS. Multiplex immunofluorescence technology was employed to stain and analyse immune cells at the tumour invasion front.
resultsIn patients with dMMR CRC, the proportion of CD8⁺ T cells at the tumour invasion front was significantly higher than that in patients with pMMR (26.84% ± 3.17% vs. 6.29% ± 1.62%, p < 0.001), whereas the proportion of CD4⁺ T cells was significantly lower (19.02% ± 2.81% vs. 37.71% ± 3.52%, p < 0.001). Regarding NK cells, the proportion of CD56 bright⁺ cells at the tumour invasion front in patients with dMMR was significantly higher than that in patients with pMMR (6.69% ± 1.04% vs. 1.93% ± 0.48%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the total number of NK cells at the tumour invasion front between the two groups.
conclusionThere are significant differences in the infiltration and distribution of immune cells at the tumour invasion front between pMMR/MSI-H and pMMR/MSS CRC. The higher infiltration of CD8⁺ T cells and CD56 bright⁺ cells at the tumour invasion front in patients with dMMR CRC may partly explain their better response to immune therapy. However, these findings require validation in larger cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.