PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer is associated with improved local control and may result in complete tumor response. Associations between tumor response and disease control following radical resection should be established before tumor response is used to evaluate treatment strategies. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare oncologic outcomes associated with the degree of pathologic response after chemoradiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with locally advanced (cT3-4 or cN+ by endorectal ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) rectal carcinoma diagnosed from 1993 to 2008 at our institution and treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and radical resection were identified, and their records were retrospectively reviewed. The median radiation dose was 50.4 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis (DM), and local recurrence (LR) rates were compared among patients with complete (ypT0N0), intermediate (ypT1-2N0), or poor (ypT3-4 or N+) response by using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: In all, 725 patients were classified by tumor response: complete (131; 18.1%), intermediate (210; 29.0%), and poor (384; 53.0%). Age, sex, cN stage, and tumor location were not related to tumor response. Tumor response (complete v intermediate v poor) was associated with 5-year RFS (90.5% v 78.7% v 58.5%; P < .001), 5-year DM rates (7.0% v 10.1% v 26.5%; P < .001), and 5-year LR only rates (0% v 1.4% v 4.4%; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Treatment response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy among patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing radical resection is an early surrogate marker and correlate to oncologic outcomes. These data provide guidance with response-stratified oncologic benchmarks for comparisons of novel treatment strategies.
PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer is associated with improved local control and may result in complete tumor response. Associations between tumor response and disease control following radical resection should be established before tumor response is used to evaluate treatment strategies. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare oncologic outcomes associated with the degree of pathologic response after chemoradiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with locally advanced (cT3-4 or cN+ by endorectal ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) rectal carcinoma diagnosed from 1993 to 2008 at our institution and treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and radical resection were identified, and their records were retrospectively reviewed. The median radiation dose was 50.4 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis (DM), and local recurrence (LR) rates were compared among patients with complete (ypT0N0), intermediate (ypT1-2N0), or poor (ypT3-4 or N+) response by using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: In all, 725 patients were classified by tumor response: complete (131; 18.1%), intermediate (210; 29.0%), and poor (384; 53.0%). Age, sex, cN stage, and tumor location were not related to tumor response. Tumor response (complete v intermediate v poor) was associated with 5-year RFS (90.5% v 78.7% v 58.5%; P < .001), 5-year DM rates (7.0% v 10.1% v 26.5%; P < .001), and 5-year LR only rates (0% v 1.4% v 4.4%; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Treatment response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy among patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing radical resection is an early surrogate marker and correlate to oncologic outcomes. These data provide guidance with response-stratified oncologic benchmarks for comparisons of novel treatment strategies.
Authors: Jessica B O'Connell; Melinda A Maggard; Jerome H Liu; David A Etzioni; Clifford Y Ko Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: N A Janjan; C Crane; B W Feig; K Cleary; R Dubrow; S Curley; J N Vauthey; P Lynch; L M Ellis; R Wolff; R Lenzi; J Abbruzzese; R Pazdur; P M Hoff; P Allen; T Brown; J Skibber Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Prajnan Das; John M Skibber; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; Barry W Feig; George J Chang; Robert A Wolff; Cathy Eng; Sunil Krishnan; Nora A Janjan; Christopher H Crane Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Albert M Wolthuis; Freddy Penninckx; Karin Haustermans; Nadine Ectors; Eric Van Cutsem; André D'Hoore Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: B Fisher; N Wolmark; H Rockette; C Redmond; M Deutsch; D L Wickerham; E R Fisher; R Caplan; J Jones; H Lerner Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1988-03-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nicole de Rosa; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; George J Chang; Jula Veerapong; Ester Borras; Sunil Krishnan; Brian Bednarski; Craig A Messick; John M Skibber; Barry W Feig; Patrick M Lynch; Eduardo Vilar; Y Nancy You Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mahshid Jalilian; Sidney Davis; Mohammadreza Mohebbi; Bhuvana Sugamaran; Ian W Porter; Stephen Bell; Satish K Warrier; Roger Wale Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2016-08
Authors: In Ja Park; Chang Sik Yu; Seok-Byung Lim; Yong Sik Yoon; Chan Wook Kim; Tae Won Kim; Jong Hoon Kim; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 3.452