Literature DB >> 15936556

The relationship of pathologic tumor regression grade (TRG) and outcomes after preoperative therapy in rectal cancer.

Fabio Maria Vecchio1, Vincenzo Valentini, Bruce D Minsky, Gilbert D A Padula, Ennapadam S Venkatraman, Mario Balducci, Francesco Miccichè, Riccardo Ricci, Alessio Giuseppe Morganti, Maria Antonietta Gambacorta, Francesca Maurizi, Claudio Coco.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between tumor regression grade (TRG) and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer treated with preoperative therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Specimens from 144 patients with cT3,4 rectal cancer who had received preoperative radiation +/- chemotherapy and had a minimum follow-up of 3 years were retrospectively reviewed. TRG, which involves examining the residual neoplastic cells and scoring the degree of both cytological changes, including nuclear pyknosis or necrosis and/or eosinophilia, as well as stromal changes, including fibrosis (either dense or edematous) with or without inflammatory infiltrate and giant-cell granulomatosis around ghost cells and keratin, was quantified in five grades according to the Mandard score (Cancer 1994;73:2680-2686). The greater the response, the lower the TRG score. The median follow-up was 72 months (range, 40-143 months).
RESULTS: Of the 144 patients, 19% were TRG1, 12% were TRG2, 21% were TRG3, 46% were TRG4, and 1% were TRG5. To simplify the analysis, TRG was combined into two groups: TRG1-2 and TRG3-5. By univariate analysis, none of the pretreatment factors examined, including age, circumference, length, distance from the anorectal ring, pretreatment T and N stage, and INDpre (defined as the pretreatment reference index size based on digital rectal examination), had an impact on 5-year outcomes, including local control, metastases-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Postoperative parameters, including pathologic T stage (pT), pathologic N stage (pN), and TRG, did significantly influence 5-year outcomes. These included local failure: pT0-2: 5% vs. pT3-4: 19%, p = 0.007; pN0: 7% vs. pN1-3: 26%, p = 0.002; TRG1-2: 2% vs. TRG3-5: 17%, p = 0.013; metastasis-free survival: pT0-2: 86% vs. pT3-4: 62%, p = 0.005; pN-: 86% vs. pN*: 42%, p < 0.001; TRG1-2: 91% vs. TRG3-5: 66%, p = 0.004; disease-free survival: pT0-2: 83% vs. pT3-4: 54%, p = 0.001; pN0: 80% vs. pN1-3: 39%, p < 0.001; TRG1-2: 91% vs. TRG3-5: 58%, p < 0.001; and overall survival: pT0-2: 85% vs. pT3-4: 65%, p = 0.007; pN0: 86% vs. pN1-3: 45%, p < 0.001; TRG1-2: 89% vs. TRG3-5: 68%, p = 0.004. By multivariate analysis combining all pre- and posttreatment parameters, only pN (p < 0.001) and TRG (p = 0.005) significantly predicted disease-free survival. Furthermore, TRG predicted the incidence of pathologic nodal involvement (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: By univariate analysis, TRG is a predictor for local failure, metastases-free survival, and overall survival. By multivariate analysis, it predicts improved disease-free survival. Given the ability of TRG to predict those patients with N* disease, it may be helpful, in combination with other clinicopathologic factors, in selecting patients for a more conservative procedure, such as local excision rather than radical surgery, after preoperative therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15936556     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.11.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  108 in total

1.  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for 135 patients with small nonadvanced low rectal cancer (iT1-iT2, iN0): short- and long-term results.

Authors:  Giovanni Lezoche; Mario Guerrieri; Maddalena Baldarelli; Alessandro Maria Paganini; Giancarlo D'Ambrosio; Roberto Campagnacci; Silvia Bartolacci; Emanuele Lezoche
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Possible predictors of histopathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Robert Farkas; Eva Pozsgai; Andrew V Schally; Andras Szigeti; Edit Szigeti; Zoltan Laszlo; Andras Papp; Eva Gomori; Laszlo Mangel; Peter O Horvath; Szabolcs Bellyei
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 4.553

3.  A multi-centre pathologist survey on pathological processing and regression grading of colorectal cancer resection specimens treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Authors:  Runjan Chetty; Pelvender Gill; Dhirendra Govender; Adrian Bateman; Hee Jin Chang; David Driman; Fraser Duthie; Marisa Gomez; Eleanor Jaynes; Cheok Soon Lee; Michael Locketz; Claudia Mescoli; Corwyn Rowsell; Anne Rullier; Stefano Serra; Neil Shepherd; Eva Szentgyorgyi; Rajkumar Vajpeyi; Lai Mun Wang
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 4.  Predicting the response to preoperative radiation or chemoradiation by a microarray analysis of the gene expression profiles in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Takashi Akiyoshi; Takashi Kobunai; Toshiaki Watanabe
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2012-06-16       Impact factor: 2.549

5.  Invited commentary on "Yun HR, Kim HC, Kim SH et al. (2010) Cytokeratin staining for complete remission in rectal cancer after chemoradiation. Int J Colorect Dis.

Authors:  Paul Hermanek
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Non-invasive MR assessment of macroscopic and microscopic vascular abnormalities in the rectal tumour-surrounding mesorectum.

Authors:  Ewelina Kluza; Jean-Paul J E Kleijnen; Milou H Martens; Dorit Rennspiess; Monique Maas; Cécile R L P N Jeukens; Robert G Riedl; Axel zur Hausen; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-08-30       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Partial pathologic response and nodal status as most significant prognostic factors for advanced rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Marianne Huebner; Bruce G Wolff; Thomas C Smyrk; Jeremiah Aakre; David W Larson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Treatment Intensification for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Impact on Pathological Complete Response and Outcomes.

Authors:  Monica DI Tommaso; Consuelo Rosa; Luciana Caravatta; Antonietta Augurio; Valentina Borzillo; Sara DI Santo; Francesca Perrotti; Maria Taraborrelli; Roberta Cianci; Paolo Innocenti; Pierluigi DI Sebastiano; Antonella Colasante; Domenico Angelucci; Massimo Basti; Giulia Sindici; Lorenzo Mazzola; Giuseppe Pizzicannella; Nicola DI Bartolomeo; Michele Marchioni; Marta DI Nicola; Domenico Genovesi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 9.  Rectal cancer treatment: improving the picture.

Authors:  Juan A Diaz-Gonzalez; Leire Arbea; Javier Aristu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-11-28       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Apparent diffusion coefficient modifications in assessing gastro-oesophageal cancer response to neoadjuvant treatment: comparison with tumour regression grade at histology.

Authors:  Francesco De Cobelli; Francesco Giganti; Elena Orsenigo; Michaela Cellina; Antonio Esposito; Giulia Agostini; Luca Albarello; Elena Mazza; Alessandro Ambrosi; Carlo Socci; Carlo Staudacher; Alessandro Del Maschio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.