| Literature DB >> 21152230 |
Young Joo Park1, Byung Ryul Oh, Sang Woo Lim, Jung Wook Huh, Jae Kyun Joo, Young Jin Kim, Hyeong Rok Kim.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy applied to the locally advanced rectal cancer reduces local recurrence and improves survival. We assessed tumor regression grade (TRG) and its influence on survival in rectal cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection.Entities:
Keywords: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy; Rectal cancer; Tumor regression grade
Year: 2010 PMID: 21152230 PMCID: PMC2998010 DOI: 10.3393/jksc.2010.26.4.279
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Korean Soc Coloproctol ISSN: 2093-7822
Tumor regression grade (TRG)
Fig. 1Microscopic appearances of rectal tissue. (A) Tumor regression grade 1: minor regression and fibrosis in only 25% or less of the tumor mass. (B) Tumor regression grade 2: moderate regression, and dominant tumor mass with obvious fibrosis in 26% to 50% of the tumor mass. (C) Tumor regression grade 3: good regression and dominant fibrosis outgrowing the tumor mass with more than 50% tumor regression. (D) Tumor regression grade 4: total regression, no viable tumor cells, and only fibrotic mass (H&E, × 20).
Type of surgery after preoperative chemoradiotherapy
Tumor regression grade (TRG) with respect to the primary tumor in 108 patients treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and surgery
Comparison between pre-concurrent chemoradiotherapy stage and pathologic stage
CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
aDownstaging number.
Correlation between tumor regression grade (TRG) and clinicopathologic factors
Values are presented as numbers (%).
CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.
Tumor recurrence and tumor regression grade (TRG)
Values are presented as number (%).
aP = 0.032; bP = 0.50.
Fig. 2Cumulative three-year overall survival and three-year disease-free survival between groups according to tumor regression grade (TRG). A comparison of the two shows no statistically significant difference (P = 0.070, P = 0.125, Kaplan-Meier Life table analysis).
Fig. 3Cumulative three-year overall survival and three-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the TRG0-3 and the TRG4 groups. The TRG4 group showed a better outcome. The three-year DFS in the TRG4 group showed statistical significance (P = 0.479, P = 0.034, Kaplan-Meier Life table analysis).
Fig. 4Cumulative three-year overall survival and three-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the pathologic complete remission (pCR) group and the non-pCR group. The pCR group showed a better outcome. The three-year DFS in the pCR group showed statistical significance (P = 0.731, P = 0.025, Kaplan-Meier Life table analysis).