Literature DB >> 21825895

Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound to assess tumor response after neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer: can we trust the findings?

Carlos Pastor1, Jose Carlos Subtil, Jesus Sola, Jorge Baixauli, Carmen Beorlegui, Leire Arbea, Javier Aristu, Jose Luis Hernandez-Lizoain.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The finding that some rectal cancers respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiation is broadening new surgical options for the treatment of some of these tumors that, until now, required a total mesorectal excision. Nevertheless, a fine match between clinical and pathological response is required when planning conservative surgical approaches.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to prospectively validate the use of endoscopic ultrasound as a predictor of clinical and pathological tumor response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.
DESIGN: : This is an observational study of a cohort of patients undergoing chemoradiation followed by surgery. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at a tertiary medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 235 consecutive patients who underwent chemoradiation followed by surgery at a single institution during a 7-year period were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All tumors were staged and restaged at 4 to 6 weeks after neoadjuvant treatment. Downsizing and downstaging were calculated between the initial and posttreatment measures and correlated to the pathological stage. The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound to predict response was determined.
RESULTS: Findings after chemoradiation showed T-downstaging in 54 patients (23%) and N-downstaging in 110 (47%). Overstaging occurred in 88 (37%) patients and was more commonly observed than understaging (21 patients; 9%). Related to the pathological report, endoscopic ultrasound correctly matched the T stage in 54% and the N stage in 75% of tumors. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values to predict nodal involvement were 39%, 91%, 67%, and 76%. Accuracy was not influenced by such factors as age, distance of the tumor from the anal verge, or time to surgery. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the lack of comparison with other imaging methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound allows prediction of involved lymph nodes in 75% of the cases; however, 1 in 5 patients are missclassified as uN0 after neoadjuvant treatment. In our point of view, this percentage is too high to rely only on this diagnostic modality to support a "wait and see" approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21825895     DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31821c4a60

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  15 in total

Review 1.  Complete radiotherapy response in rectal cancer: A review of the evidence.

Authors:  Daniel G Couch; David M Hemingway
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  How Should Imaging Direct/Orient Management of Rectal Cancer?

Authors:  Jemma Bhoday; Svetlana Balyasnikova; Anita Wale; Gina Brown
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2017-11-27

Review 3.  Predicting complete response: is there a role for non-operative management of rectal cancer?

Authors:  T Jonathan Yang; Karyn A Goodman
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-04

4.  Stage and size using magnetic resonance imaging and endosonography in neoadjuvantly-treated rectal cancer.

Authors:  Torbjörn Swartling; Peter Kälebo; Kristoffer Derwinger; Bengt Gustavsson; Göran Kurlberg
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: What We Learned in the Last Two Decades and the Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Vivek Srivastava; Aakansha Giri Goswami; Somprakas Basu; Vijay Kumar Shukla
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2022-01-03

Review 6.  Advances and challenges in treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Authors:  J Joshua Smith; Julio Garcia-Aguilar
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  3'-deoxy-3'-[¹⁸F]-fluorothymidine PET/CT in early determination of prognosis in patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer: comparison with [¹⁸F]-FDG PET/CT.

Authors:  Haojun Chen; Yimin Li; Hua Wu; Long Sun; Qin Lin; Long Zhao; Hanxiang An
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 3.621

8.  Assessing Rectal Cancer Treatment Response Using Coregistered Endorectal Photoacoustic and US Imaging Paired with Deep Learning.

Authors:  Xiandong Leng; K M Shihab Uddin; William Chapman; Hongbo Luo; Sitai Kou; Eghbal Amidi; Guang Yang; Deyali Chatterjee; Anup Shetty; Steve Hunt; Matthew Mutch; Quing Zhu
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Assessment of Clinical Complete Response After Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer with Digital Rectal Examination, Endoscopy, and MRI: Selection for Organ-Saving Treatment.

Authors:  Monique Maas; Doenja M J Lambregts; Patty J Nelemans; Luc A Heijnen; Milou H Martens; Jeroen W A Leijtens; Meindert Sosef; Karel W E Hulsewé; Christiaan Hoff; Stephanie O Breukink; Laurents Stassen; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Geerard L Beets
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 10.  Current approaches and challenges for monitoring treatment response in colon and rectal cancer.

Authors:  Elizabeth McKeown; Daniel W Nelson; Eric K Johnson; Justin A Maykel; Alexander Stojadinovic; Aviram Nissan; Itzhak Avital; Björn Ldm Brücher; Scott R Steele
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 4.207

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.