PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to confirm the prognostic value of an optimal morphologic response to preoperative chemotherapy in patients undergoing chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab before resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) and to identify predictors of the optimal morphologic response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 209 patients who underwent resection of CLM after preoperative chemotherapy with oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based regimens with or without bevacizumab. Radiologic responses were classified as optimal or suboptimal according to the morphologic response criteria. Overall survival (OS) was determined, and prognostic factors associated with an optimal response were identified in multivariate analysis. RESULTS: An optimal morphologic response was observed in 47% of patients treated with bevacizumab and 12% of patients treated without bevacizumab (P < .001). The 3- and 5-year OS rates were higher in the optimal response group (82% and 74%, respectively) compared with the suboptimal response group (60% and 45%, respectively; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, suboptimal morphologic response was an independent predictor of worse OS (hazard ratio, 2.09; P = .007). Receipt of bevacizumab (odds ratio, 6.71; P < .001) and largest metastasis before chemotherapy of ≤ 3 cm (odds ratio, 2.12; P = .025) were significantly associated with optimal morphologic response. The morphologic response showed no specific correlation with conventional size-based RECIST criteria, and it was superior to RECIST in predicting major pathologic response. CONCLUSION: Independent of preoperative chemotherapy regimen, optimal morphologic response is sufficiently correlated with OS to be considered a surrogate therapeutic end point for patients with CLM.
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to confirm the prognostic value of an optimal morphologic response to preoperative chemotherapy in patients undergoing chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab before resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) and to identify predictors of the optimal morphologic response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 209 patients who underwent resection of CLM after preoperative chemotherapy with oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based regimens with or without bevacizumab. Radiologic responses were classified as optimal or suboptimal according to the morphologic response criteria. Overall survival (OS) was determined, and prognostic factors associated with an optimal response were identified in multivariate analysis. RESULTS: An optimal morphologic response was observed in 47% of patients treated with bevacizumab and 12% of patients treated without bevacizumab (P < .001). The 3- and 5-year OS rates were higher in the optimal response group (82% and 74%, respectively) compared with the suboptimal response group (60% and 45%, respectively; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, suboptimal morphologic response was an independent predictor of worse OS (hazard ratio, 2.09; P = .007). Receipt of bevacizumab (odds ratio, 6.71; P < .001) and largest metastasis before chemotherapy of ≤ 3 cm (odds ratio, 2.12; P = .025) were significantly associated with optimal morphologic response. The morphologic response showed no specific correlation with conventional size-based RECIST criteria, and it was superior to RECIST in predicting major pathologic response. CONCLUSION: Independent of preoperative chemotherapy regimen, optimal morphologic response is sufficiently correlated with OS to be considered a surrogate therapeutic end point for patients with CLM.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: C Suzuki; L Blomqvist; A Sundin; H Jacobsson; P Byström; Å Berglund; P Nygren; B Glimelius Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Michael A Choti; James V Sitzmann; Marcelo F Tiburi; Wuthi Sumetchotimetha; Ram Rangsin; Richard D Schulick; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo; John L Cameron Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Eddie K Abdalla; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Lee M Ellis; Vickie Ellis; Raphael Pollock; Kristine R Broglio; Kenneth Hess; Steven A Curley Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Alexander A Parikh; Bernhard Gentner; Tsung-Teh Wu; Steven A Curley; Lee M Ellis; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Harun Ilhan; Philipp M Paprottka; Tobias F Jakobs; Volker Heinemann; Peter Bartenstein; Feras Khalaf; Samer Ezziddin; Marcus Hacker; Alexander R Haug Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andreas Andreou; Luca Viganò; Giuseppe Zimmitti; Daniel Seehofer; Martin Dreyer; Andreas Pascher; Marcus Bahra; Wenzel Schoening; Volker Schmitz; Peter C Thuss-Patience; Timm Denecke; Gero Puhl; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Peter Neuhaus; Lorenzo Capussotti; Johann Pratschke; Sven-Christian Schmidt Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: K J Paprottka; F Schoeppe; M Ingrisch; J Rübenthaler; N N Sommer; E De Toni; H Ilhan; M Zacherl; A Todica; P M Paprottka Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M J Fernández-Aceñero; D Cortés; T Gómez del Pulgar; A Cebrián; L Estrada; J Martínez-Useros; A Celdrán; J García-Foncillas; C Pastor Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 3.201