| Literature DB >> 27055660 |
Luc A Heijnen1,2, Monique Maas3,4,5, Regina G Beets-Tan6,7, Myrthe Berkhof1, Doenja M Lambregts7, Patty J Nelemans8, Robert Riedl9, Geerard L Beets7,10.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to explore the influence of chemoradiation treatment (CRT) on rectal cancer nodes and to generate hypotheses why nodal restaging post-CRT is more accurate than at primary staging.Entities:
Keywords: Chemoradiation; Histopathology; Nodal staging; Rectal cancer; Response
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27055660 PMCID: PMC4867151 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-016-2576-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis ISSN: 0179-1958 Impact factor: 2.571
Fig. 13D T1-weighted gradient echo images before (a) and after (b) CRT. The pre-CRT image shows four lymph nodes (arrows). The two nodes on the left and the lateral node on the right (white arrows) are just over 5 mm in size and the two nodes on the left side also show irregular borders. These nodes were therefore interpreted as malignant nodes, while the smaller node (black arrow) was interpreted as benign. After CRT (b), two nodes are no longer visible and are assumed to be benign, whereas the two remaining nodes have decreased in size. The two remaining nodes are 2–3 mm (black arrow) and 4 mm (white arrow) in size, without suspicious characteristics. They were interpreted as benign nodes, confirmed at histopathology
Baseline characteristics and results with regard to number and size of nodes for all patients and for patients with and without positive nodes at pathology
| All ( | ypN0 ( | ypN+ ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (months) | 70 (38–87) | 70 (52–87) | 65 (38–80) |
|
| Gender (% male) | 27 (69 %) | 18 (72 %) | 9 (64 %) |
|
| Clinical T-stage | ||||
| cT1 | 0 % | 0 | 0 | |
| cT2 | 4 (10 %) | 2 (8 %) | 2 (14 %) | |
| cT3 | 33 (85 %) | 21 (84 %) | 12 (86 %) |
|
| cT4 | 2 (5 %) | 2 (8 %) | 0 | |
| Clinical N-stage | ||||
| cN0 | 1 (3 %) | 1 (4 %) | 0 | |
| cN1 | 10 (26 %) | 6 (24 %) | 4 (29 %) |
|
| cN2 | 28 (72 %) | 18 (72 %) | 10 (71 %) | |
| Post-CRT clinical T-stage | ||||
| yT1 | 0 % | 0 % | 0 | |
| yT2 | 11 (28 %) | 7 (28 %) | 4 (29 %) |
|
| yT3 | 26 (67 %) | 16 (64 %) | 10 (71 %) | |
| yT4 | 2 (5 %) | 2 (8 %) | 0 | |
| Post-CRT clinical N-stage | ||||
| yN0 | 18 (46 %) | 15 (60 %) | 3 (21 %) | |
| yN1 | 14 (36 %) | 7 (28 %) | 7 (50 %) |
|
| yN2 | 7 (18 %) | 3 (12 %) | 4 (29 %) | |
| ypT stage | ||||
| ypT0 | 3 (8 %) | 2 (8 %) | 1 (7 %) | |
| ypT1 | 4 (10 %) | 4 (16 %) | 0 | |
| ypT2 | 10 (26 %) | 7 (28 %) | 3 (21 %) |
|
| ypT3 | 21 (54 %) | 11 (44 %) | 10 (71 %) | |
| ypT4 | 1 (3 %) | 1 (4 %) | 0 | |
| ypN stage | ||||
| ypN0 | 25 (64 %) | |||
| ypN1 | 9 (23 %) | NA | NA | |
| ypN2 | 5 (13 %) | |||
| Pre-CRT size (mean ± sd) | 3.8 (±2.0) | 3.6 (±1.6) | 6.3 (±3.5) |
|
| Post-CRT size mean ± sd) | 2.5 (±1.7) | 2.3 (±1.4) | 4.5 (±2.8)) |
|
| Number of nodes pre-CRT (mean ± sd) | 22 (±8) | 24 (±13) | 22 (±7) |
|
| Number of nodes post-CRT (mean ± sd) | 13 (±6) | 13 (±7) | 11 (±6) |
|
| Nodal harvest at pathology | 12 (±6) | 10 (±6) | 14 (±5) |
|
NA not applicable, CRT chemoradiation, sd standard deviation
Fig. 2Distribution of nodal changes (in terms of size and disappearance) due to CRT
Fig. 3Distribution of malignant and benign nodes after CRT for different size categories
Fig. 4Percentage of positive nodes according to reduction in size between pre- and post-CRT MRI