Literature DB >> 25140894

Assessment of tumor regression of esophageal adenocarcinomas after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of 2 commonly used scoring approaches.

Eva Karamitopoulou1, Svenja Thies, Inti Zlobec, Katja Ott, Marcus Feith, Julia Slotta-Huspenina, Florian Lordick, Karen Becker, Rupert Langer.   

Abstract

Histopathologic determination of tumor regression provides important prognostic information for locally advanced gastroesophageal carcinomas after neoadjuvant treatment. Regression grading systems mostly refer to the amount of therapy-induced fibrosis in relation to residual tumor or the estimated percentage of residual tumor in relation to the former tumor site. Although these methods are generally accepted, currently there is no common standard for reporting tumor regression in gastroesophageal cancers. We compared the application of these 2 major principles for assessment of tumor regression: hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides from 89 resection specimens of esophageal adenocarcinomas following neoadjuvant chemotherapy were independently reviewed by 3 pathologists from different institutions. Tumor regression was determined by the 5-tiered Mandard system (fibrosis/tumor relation) and the 4-tiered Becker system (residual tumor in %). Interobserver agreement for the Becker system showed better weighted κ values compared with the Mandard system (0.78 vs. 0.62). Evaluation of the whole embedded tumor site showed improved results (Becker: 0.83; Mandard: 0.73) as compared with only 1 representative slide (Becker: 0.68; Mandard: 0.71). Modification into simplified 3-tiered systems showed comparable interobserver agreement but better prognostic stratification for both systems (log rank Becker: P=0.015; Mandard P=0.03), with independent prognostic impact for overall survival (modified Becker: P=0.011, hazard ratio=3.07; modified Mandard: P=0.023, hazard ratio=2.72). In conclusion, both systems provide substantial to excellent interobserver agreement for estimation of tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in esophageal adenocarcinomas. A simple 3-tiered system with the estimation of residual tumor in % (complete regression/1% to 50% residual tumor/>50% residual tumor) maintains the highest reproducibility and prognostic value.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25140894     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000255

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  19 in total

Review 1.  Pathologic assessment of gastrointestinal tract and pancreatic carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Reetesh K Pai; Rish K Pai
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 2.  Pathology of esophageal cancer and Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Shilpa Jain; Sadhna Dhingra
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-03

Review 3.  Tumor regression grading of gastrointestinal cancers after neoadjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Rupert Langer; Karen Becker
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-09-16       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Prognostic relevance of tumor response after neoadjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Elfriede Bollschweiler; Arnulf H Hölscher
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

5.  The Impact of Tumor Regression on Prognosis After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Surgically Treated Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  D J Crull; M C H Hogenes; R Hoekstra; E M Hendriksen; M J van Det; E A Kouwenhoven
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-01-29       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 6.  Histopathological markers of treatment response and recurrence risk in ovarian cancers and borderline tumors.

Authors:  S Avril
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.011

7.  The relationship between pathologic nodal disease and residual tumor viability after induction chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma receiving a tri-modality regimen.

Authors:  Michael J McNamara; Lisa A Rybicki; Davendra Sohal; Daniela S Allende; Gregory M M Videtic; Cristina P Rodriguez; Kevin L Stephans; Sudish C Murthy; Siva Raja; Daniel Raymond; Denise I Ives; Joanna W Bodmann; David J Adelstein
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2016-04

8.  Prognostic value of complete metabolic response on ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT after three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Young Shin Chung; Yup Kim; Hyun-Soo Kim; Jung-Yun Lee; Won Jun Kang; Sunghoon Kim; Sang Wun Kim
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 4.756

9.  Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Derek Alderson; David Cunningham; Matthew Nankivell; Jane M Blazeby; S Michael Griffin; Adrian Crellin; Heike I Grabsch; Rupert Langer; Susan Pritchard; Alicia Okines; Richard Krysztopik; Fareeda Coxon; Joyce Thompson; Stephen Falk; Clare Robb; Sally Stenning; Ruth E Langley
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  Correlation Between Tumor Regression Grade and Clinicopathological Parameters in Patients With Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus Who Received Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Yin-Kai Chao; Chun-Bi Chang; Wen-Yu Chuang; Yu-Wen Wen; Hsien-Kun Chang; Chen-Kan Tseng; Chi-Ju Yeh; Yun-Hen Liu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.