BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response has been proven to have oncological benefits for locally advanced rectal cancer treated with chemoradiation therapy. The aims of this study are to analyze and determine the factors to predict pathologic complete response for patients treated with preoperative neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Patients with biopsy-proven, locally advanced rectal cancer were treated neoadjuvantly followed by radical surgical resection. Tumors were re-assessed after completing chemoradiation, including pelvic magnetic resonance images, colonoscopic examination, and re-biopsy. The results of examination were compared with the final pathologic status. RESULTS: A retrospective chart review of 166 patients was conducted. Twenty-five patients (15.1%) had pathologic complete response after chemoradiation. The 5-year overall survival rates were better in the complete response group than the residual tumor group (91.1% vs. 70.8%; P = 0.047), and there were also significant differences in the 5-year disease-free survival rates between these two groups (91.1% vs. 70.2%; P = 0.027). The prediction rates for pathologic complete response by re-biopsy, magnetic resonance images, and colonoscopy were 21.4%, 33.3%, and 53.8%, respectively. In addition, when we further combine the results of colonoscopic findings and re-biopsy, the prediction rate for pathologic complete response reached 77.8% (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Combining the results of the re-biopsy and post-treatment colonoscopic findings, we can achieve a good prediction rate for pathologic complete response. Post-treatment magnetic resonance images are not useful tools in predicting tumor clearance following chemoradiation.
BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response has been proven to have oncological benefits for locally advanced rectal cancer treated with chemoradiation therapy. The aims of this study are to analyze and determine the factors to predict pathologic complete response for patients treated with preoperative neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS:Patients with biopsy-proven, locally advanced rectal cancer were treated neoadjuvantly followed by radical surgical resection. Tumors were re-assessed after completing chemoradiation, including pelvic magnetic resonance images, colonoscopic examination, and re-biopsy. The results of examination were compared with the final pathologic status. RESULTS: A retrospective chart review of 166 patients was conducted. Twenty-five patients (15.1%) had pathologic complete response after chemoradiation. The 5-year overall survival rates were better in the complete response group than the residual tumor group (91.1% vs. 70.8%; P = 0.047), and there were also significant differences in the 5-year disease-free survival rates between these two groups (91.1% vs. 70.2%; P = 0.027). The prediction rates for pathologic complete response by re-biopsy, magnetic resonance images, and colonoscopy were 21.4%, 33.3%, and 53.8%, respectively. In addition, when we further combine the results of colonoscopic findings and re-biopsy, the prediction rate for pathologic complete response reached 77.8% (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Combining the results of the re-biopsy and post-treatment colonoscopic findings, we can achieve a good prediction rate for pathologic complete response. Post-treatment magnetic resonance images are not useful tools in predicting tumor clearance following chemoradiation.
Authors: Carlo Capirci; Vincenzo Valentini; Luca Cionini; Antonino De Paoli; Claus Rodel; Robert Glynne-Jones; Claudio Coco; Mario Romano; Giovanna Mantello; Silvia Palazzi; Falchetti Osti Mattia; Maria Luisa Friso; Domenico Genovesi; Cristiana Vidali; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta; Alberto Buffoli; Marco Lupattelli; Maria Silvia Favretto; Giuseppe La Torre Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: B D Minsky; A M Cohen; W E Enker; L Saltz; J G Guillem; P B Paty; D P Kelsen; N Kemeny; D Ilson; J Bass; J Conti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-01-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Roy F A Vliegen; Regina G Beets-Tan; Bart Vanhauten; Ann Driessen; Michel Oellers; Alfons G Kessels; Ann Arens; Geerard L Beets; Jeroen Buijsen; Angela van Baardwijk; Dirk de Ruysscher; Guido Lammering Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Won-Suk Lee; Seok Ho Lee; Jeong-Heum Baek; Woon Kee Lee; Jung Nam Lee; Na Rae Kim; Yeon Ho Park Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 3.481
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
Authors: Kyung Su Han; Dae Kyung Sohn; Dae Yong Kim; Byung Chang Kim; Chang Won Hong; Hee Jin Chang; Sun Young Kim; Ji Yeon Baek; Sung Chan Park; Min Ju Kim; Jae Hwan Oh Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 4.679