Literature DB >> 27602923

Magnetic Resonance Tumor Regression Grade and Residual Mucosal Abnormality as Predictors for Pathological Complete Response in Rectal Cancer Postneoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

Jemma Bhoday1, Fraser Smith, Muhammed R Siddiqui, Svetlana Balyasnikova, Robert I Swift, Rodrigo Perez, Angelita Habr-Gama, Gina Brown.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pathological complete response after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer occurs in 10% to 30% of patients. The best method to identify such patients remains unclear. Clinical assessment of residual mucosal abnormality is considered the most accurate method. In our institution, magnetic resonance tumor regression grade is performed as routine to assess response.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity of magnetic tumor regression grade against residual mucosal abnormality in detecting patients with a pathological complete response.
DESIGN: Magnetic tumor regression grade scores from reported posttreatment MRI scans were documented. Magnetic tumor regression grade 1 to 3 was defined as likely to predict complete or near complete response. Gross appearances of the mucosa were derived from histopathology reports and used as a surrogate for clinical assessment (previously validated). Final histopathological staging was used to determine response. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at Royal Marsden National Health Service Trust, United Kingdom. PATIENTS: A total of 143 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma, diagnosed between September 1, 2009, and September 1, 2013, who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before curative surgery were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity of magnetic tumor regression grade and residual mucosal abnormality in detecting patients with pathological complete response were measured
RESULTS: : Eighteen patients had a pathological complete response. Seventeen were detected using magnetic resonance tumor regression grade 1 to 3, with sensitivity 94% (95% CI, 0.74-0.99), and 10 were detected using residual mucosal abnormality, with sensitivity 62% (95% CI, 0.38-0.81). There was no statistical difference between the false positive rates for either method. Magnetic tumor regression grade identified 10 times more patients with a pathological complete response (diagnostic OR = 10.2 (95% CI, 1.30-73.73)) compared with clinical assessment with RMA. LIMITATIONS: Residual mucosal abnormality was used as a surrogate marker for endoscopic appearances.
CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with rectal cancer who have a pathological complete response do not manifest a complete response at the mucosal level. Magnetic tumor regression grade is able to identify 10 times more patients than clinical assessment, with no significant compromise in the false positive rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27602923     DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000667

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  29 in total

Review 1.  Non-operative management of rectal cancer: understanding tumor biology.

Authors:  Iris H Wei; Julio Garcia-Aguilar
Journal:  Minerva Chir       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 2.  Management of the Complete Clinical Response.

Authors:  Angelita Habr-Gama; Guilherme Pagin São Julião; Bruna Borba Vailati; Ivana Castro; Debora Raffaele
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2017-11-27

3.  Rectal sparing approach after preoperative radio- and/or chemotherapy (RESARCH) in patients with rectal cancer: a multicentre observational study.

Authors:  A Barina; A De Paoli; P Delrio; M Guerrieri; A Muratore; F Bianco; D Vespa; C Asteria; E Morpurgo; A Restivo; C Coco; U Pace; C Belluco; C Aschele; S Lonardi; V Valentini; G Mantello; I Maretto; P Del Bianco; A Perin; S Pucciarelli
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 3.781

4.  The split scar sign as an indicator of sustained complete response after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Inês Santiago; Maria Barata; Nuno Figueiredo; Oriol Parés; Vanessa Henriques; António Galzerano; Carlos Carvalho; Celso Matos; Richard J Heald
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  'Watch and wait' in rectal cancer: summary of the current evidence.

Authors:  Jason On; Emad H Aly
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Rectal Sparing Approach After Neoadjuvant Therapy in Patients with Rectal Cancer: The Preliminary Results of the ReSARCh Trial.

Authors:  Francesco Marchegiani; Valeria Palatucci; Giulia Capelli; Mario Guerrieri; Claudio Belluco; Daniela Rega; Emilio Morpurgo; Claudio Coco; Angelo Restivo; Silvia De Franciscis; Carlo Aschele; Alessandro Perin; Michele Bonomo; Andrea Muratore; Antonino Spinelli; Salvatore Ramuscello; Francesca Bergamo; Giampaolo Montesi; Gaya Spolverato; Paola Del Bianco; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta; Paolo Delrio; Salvatore Pucciarelli
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Signet ring cell component predicts the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer. Long interim results of a single institution experience.

Authors:  Alia M Attia; Ashraf Farrag; Noha M Attia; Lamiaa Mr Khalaf; Hesham M Hassan; Mahmoud Gamal Ameen; Ebrahim Aboeleuon; Sanaa Saber Abd El-Raheem; Ahmed Mahran; Ahmed Mubarak Hefni
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 6.166

Review 8.  Treatment of Rectal Cancer in Older Adults.

Authors:  Ayesha R Sheikh; Hassan Yameen; Kevan Hartshorn
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  MR tumor regression grade for pathological complete response in rectal cancer post neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis for accuracy.

Authors:  Jong Keon Jang; Sang Hyun Choi; Seong Ho Park; Kyung Won Kim; Hyun Jin Kim; Jong Seok Lee; Ah Young Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  [Rational staging and follow-up of colorectal cancer : Do guidelines provide further help?]

Authors:  M S Juchems; J Wessling
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 0.635

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.