Yi-Fan Peng1, Wei-Dong Yu1, Hong-Da Pan1, Lin Wang1, Ming Li1, Yun-Feng Yao1, Jun Zhao1, Jin Gu1. 1. Yi-Fan Peng, Hong-Da Pan, Lin Wang, Ming Li, Yun-Feng Yao, Jun Zhao, Jin Gu, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Colorectal Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, China.
Abstract
AIM: To analyze tumor regression grade (TRG) for prognosis of locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (LARA) treated with preoperative radiotherapy. METHODS: One hundred and ninety patients with clinical stage II/III LARA were studied. All patients underwent radical surgery (between 2004 and 2010) after 30-Gy/10-fraction preoperative radiotherapy (pre-RT). All 190 patients received a short course of pre-RT and were reassessed for disease recurrence and survival; the slides of surgical specimens were reviewed and classified according to Mandard TRG. We compared patients with good response (Mandard TRG1 or TRG2) vs patients with bad/poor response (Mandard TRG3-5). Outcomes evaluated were 5-year overall survival (OS), 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and local, distant and mixed recurrence. Fisher's exact test or χ(2) test, log-rank test and proportional hazards regression analysis were used to calculate the probability that Mandard TRG was associated with patient outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-six of 190 patients (87.4%) were identified as Mandard bad responders (TRG3-5). High Mandard grade was correlated with tumor height (41.7% < 6 cm vs 58.3% ≥ 6 cm, P = 0.050), ypT stage (75% ypT0-2 vs 25% ypT3-4, P = 0.000), and ypN stage (75% ypN0 vs 25% ypN1, P = 0.031). In univariate survival analysis, Mandard grade bad responders had significantly worse OS and DFS than good responders (TRG1/2) (OS, 83.1% vs 96.4%, P = 0.000; DFS, 72.3% vs 92.0%, P = 0.002). In multivariate survival analysis, Mandard bad responders had significantly worse DFS than Mandard good responders (DFS 3.8 years (95%CI: 1.2-12.2 years, P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Mandard grade good responders had a favorable prognosis. TRG may be a potential predictor for DFS in LARA after pre-RT.
AIM: To analyze tumor regression grade (TRG) for prognosis of locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (LARA) treated with preoperative radiotherapy. METHODS: One hundred and ninety patients with clinical stage II/III LARA were studied. All patients underwent radical surgery (between 2004 and 2010) after 30-Gy/10-fraction preoperative radiotherapy (pre-RT). All 190 patients received a short course of pre-RT and were reassessed for disease recurrence and survival; the slides of surgical specimens were reviewed and classified according to Mandard TRG. We compared patients with good response (Mandard TRG1 or TRG2) vs patients with bad/poor response (Mandard TRG3-5). Outcomes evaluated were 5-year overall survival (OS), 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and local, distant and mixed recurrence. Fisher's exact test or χ(2) test, log-rank test and proportional hazards regression analysis were used to calculate the probability that Mandard TRG was associated with patient outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-six of 190 patients (87.4%) were identified as Mandard bad responders (TRG3-5). High Mandard grade was correlated with tumor height (41.7% < 6 cm vs 58.3% ≥ 6 cm, P = 0.050), ypT stage (75% ypT0-2 vs 25% ypT3-4, P = 0.000), and ypN stage (75% ypN0 vs 25% ypN1, P = 0.031). In univariate survival analysis, Mandard grade bad responders had significantly worse OS and DFS than good responders (TRG1/2) (OS, 83.1% vs 96.4%, P = 0.000; DFS, 72.3% vs 92.0%, P = 0.002). In multivariate survival analysis, Mandard bad responders had significantly worse DFS than Mandard good responders (DFS 3.8 years (95%CI: 1.2-12.2 years, P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Mandard grade good responders had a favorable prognosis. TRG may be a potential predictor for DFS in LARA after pre-RT.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Koen C M J Peeters; Corrie A M Marijnen; Iris D Nagtegaal; Elma Klein Kranenbarg; Hein Putter; Theo Wiggers; Harm Rutten; Lars Pahlman; Bengt Glimelius; Jan Willem Leer; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: E Benzoni; D Intersimone; G Terrosu; V Bresadola; A Cojutti; F Cerato; C Avellini Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2006-03-07 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: David Sebag-Montefiore; Richard J Stephens; Robert Steele; John Monson; Robert Grieve; Subhash Khanna; Phil Quirke; Jean Couture; Catherine de Metz; Arthur Sun Myint; Eric Bessell; Gareth Griffiths; Lindsay C Thompson; Mahesh Parmar Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michael D Chuong; Jessica M Frakes; Nicholas Figura; Sarah E Hoffe; Ravi Shridhar; Eric A Mellon; Pamela J Hodul; Mokenge P Malafa; Gregory M Springett; Barbara A Centeno Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2016-04