Susanne Merkel1,2, Klaus Weber3, Jonas Göhl3, Abbas Agaimy4, Rainer Fietkau5, Werner Hohenberger3, Robert Grützmann3, Paul Hermanek3. 1. Department of Surgery, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. susanne.merkel@uk-erlangen.de. 2. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Krankenhausstr. 12, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. susanne.merkel@uk-erlangen.de. 3. Department of Surgery, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 4. Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Survival is an important indicator of outcome quality in rectal carcinoma. The 5-year survival rate is the typical outcome measurement. In patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by curative surgery, 7 years of follow-up is recommended. Different methods of survival analysis lead to different results. Here, we compared four different methods. METHODS: The data of 439 patients with rectal carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by curative total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery between 1995 and 2010 were analysed. After stratifying by stage, relative survival (RS), cancer-related survival (CRS), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared. In particular, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was compared to the 5- and 7-year overall survival rates. RESULTS: In the total cohort, the 5-year survival rates ranged from 90% (RS), over 84% (CRS) and 83% (OS) to 72% (DFS). Depending on the stage of disease, the differences between the 5-year survival rates varied between 10 and 32 percentage points. The differences were lowest in UICC stage y0 and highest in UICC stage yIV. The 3-year DFS-rate was always lower (worse) than the 5-year OS rate and higher (better) than the 7-year OS rate, with the exception of stage yIV. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons of survival are only meaningful if the same methods are applied. The 3-year rate of DFS was always worse than the rate of 5-year OS. Therefore, the 3-year rate of DFS appears to be a useful surrogate indicator in rectal carcinoma treatment studies.
PURPOSE: Survival is an important indicator of outcome quality in rectal carcinoma. The 5-year survival rate is the typical outcome measurement. In patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by curative surgery, 7 years of follow-up is recommended. Different methods of survival analysis lead to different results. Here, we compared four different methods. METHODS: The data of 439 patients with rectal carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by curative total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery between 1995 and 2010 were analysed. After stratifying by stage, relative survival (RS), cancer-related survival (CRS), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared. In particular, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was compared to the 5- and 7-year overall survival rates. RESULTS: In the total cohort, the 5-year survival rates ranged from 90% (RS), over 84% (CRS) and 83% (OS) to 72% (DFS). Depending on the stage of disease, the differences between the 5-year survival rates varied between 10 and 32 percentage points. The differences were lowest in UICC stage y0 and highest in UICC stage yIV. The 3-year DFS-rate was always lower (worse) than the 5-year OS rate and higher (better) than the 7-year OS rate, with the exception of stage yIV. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons of survival are only meaningful if the same methods are applied. The 3-year rate of DFS was always worse than the rate of 5-year OS. Therefore, the 3-year rate of DFS appears to be a useful surrogate indicator in rectal carcinoma treatment studies.
Authors: Soo Young Lee; Jeong Seon Jo; Hun Jin Kim; Chang Hyun Kim; Young Jin Kim; Hyeong Rok Kim Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Daniel J Sargent; Smitha Patiyil; Greg Yothers; Daniel G Haller; Richard Gray; Jacqueline Benedetti; Marc Buyse; Roberto Labianca; Jean Francois Seitz; Christopher J O'Callaghan; Guido Francini; Axel Grothey; Michael O'Connell; Paul J Catalano; David Kerr; Erin Green; Harry S Wieand; Richard M Goldberg; Aimery de Gramont Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mark S Roh; Linda H Colangelo; Michael J O'Connell; Greg Yothers; Melvin Deutsch; Carmen J Allegra; Morton S Kahlenberg; Luis Baez-Diaz; Carol S Ursiny; Nicholas J Petrelli; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-09-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mohammad Zare-Bandamiri; Mohammad Fararouei; Shadi Zohourinia; Nima Daneshi; Mostafa Dianatinasab Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Date: 2017-09-27