Lijun Shen1,2, Yiqun Sun2,3, Hui Zhang1,2, Jing Zhang1,2, Weijuan Deng1,2, Yaqi Wang1,2, Ye Yao1,2, Lifeng Yang1,2, Ji Zhu1,2, Tong Tong2,3, Liping Liang1,2, Zhen Zhang1,2. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology,Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center , Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center , Shanghai , China. 2. 2 Department of Oncology,Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University , Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University , Shanghai , China. 3. 3 Department of Radiology,Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center , Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center , Shanghai , China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of the EMD (extramural depth)/mesorectum ratio as a marker for T3 rectal cancer and its ability to predict tumour response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation and survival. METHODS: From 2010 to 2016, 284 T3 rectal cancer patients who underwent high resolution MRI before neoadjuvant chemoradiation were enrolled. The EMD was defined as the distance from the outer edge of the muscularis propria to the outermost edge of the tumour. The measurement of the tumour EMD and mesorectum was in the same layer and their ratio was calculated. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and relative area under the curve statistics were used to choose the cut-off value. The association of the EMD/mesorectum ratio and other MRI or clinical factors with the tumour regression grade (TRG) was analysed. Cox regression analysis was used to estimate independent risk factors for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The mean EMD/mesorectum ratio was 0.47 ± 0.3. We chose an EMD/mesorectum ratio of 0.5 in further analyses after receiver operating characteristic analysis. Of 284 patients, 177 (62.3%) had an EMD/mesorectum ratio ≤ 0.5. Patients with an EMD/mesorectum ratio ≤ 0.5 had a higher TRG 0-1 rate than patients with a ratio >0.5 (53.1% vs 36.4%, p = 0.006). A multivariate analysis identified that an EMD/mesorectum ratio >0.5 [hazard ratio (HR) 2.020; p = 0.028] and ypTNM II-III (HR 3.550; p = 0.017) were independent prognostic factors to indicate decreased DFS. For OS, only patients with TRG 2-3 had decreased OS compared with patients with TRG 0-1 (HR 2.959; p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: When the EMD/mesorectum ratio was applied to categorize T3 rectal cancer patients, the ratio of 0.5 can be used as a cut-off value for T3 rectal cancer. Patients with a ratio ≤ 0.5 had a higher response rate and better DFS. However, further validation is needed in a larger sample of patients. Advances in knowledge: The EMD/mesorectum ratio may serve to predict tumour response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation and survival in T3 rectal cancer patients.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of the EMD (extramural depth)/mesorectum ratio as a marker for T3 rectal cancer and its ability to predict tumour response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation and survival. METHODS: From 2010 to 2016, 284 T3 rectal cancerpatients who underwent high resolution MRI before neoadjuvant chemoradiation were enrolled. The EMD was defined as the distance from the outer edge of the muscularis propria to the outermost edge of the tumour. The measurement of the tumour EMD and mesorectum was in the same layer and their ratio was calculated. Receiver operating characteristic analysis and relative area under the curve statistics were used to choose the cut-off value. The association of the EMD/mesorectum ratio and other MRI or clinical factors with the tumour regression grade (TRG) was analysed. Cox regression analysis was used to estimate independent risk factors for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The mean EMD/mesorectum ratio was 0.47 ± 0.3. We chose an EMD/mesorectum ratio of 0.5 in further analyses after receiver operating characteristic analysis. Of 284 patients, 177 (62.3%) had an EMD/mesorectum ratio ≤ 0.5. Patients with an EMD/mesorectum ratio ≤ 0.5 had a higher TRG 0-1 rate than patients with a ratio >0.5 (53.1% vs 36.4%, p = 0.006). A multivariate analysis identified that an EMD/mesorectum ratio >0.5 [hazard ratio (HR) 2.020; p = 0.028] and ypTNM II-III (HR 3.550; p = 0.017) were independent prognostic factors to indicate decreased DFS. For OS, only patients with TRG 2-3 had decreased OS compared with patients with TRG 0-1 (HR 2.959; p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: When the EMD/mesorectum ratio was applied to categorize T3 rectal cancerpatients, the ratio of 0.5 can be used as a cut-off value for T3 rectal cancer. Patients with a ratio ≤ 0.5 had a higher response rate and better DFS. However, further validation is needed in a larger sample of patients. Advances in knowledge: The EMD/mesorectum ratio may serve to predict tumour response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation and survival in T3 rectal cancerpatients.
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: Nicholas J Battersby; Peter How; Brendan Moran; Sigmar Stelzner; Nicholas P West; Graham Branagan; Joachim Strassburg; Philip Quirke; Paris Tekkis; Bodil Ginnerup Pedersen; Mark Gudgeon; Bill Heald; Gina Brown Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Anne J Breugom; Marloes Swets; Jean-François Bosset; Laurence Collette; Aldo Sainato; Luca Cionini; Rob Glynne-Jones; Nicholas Counsell; Esther Bastiaannet; Colette B M van den Broek; Gerrit-Jan Liefers; Hein Putter; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Luigi Zorcolo; Alan S Rosman; Angelo Restivo; Michele Pisano; Giuseppe R Nigri; Alessandro Fancellu; Marcovalerio Melis Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: A J Breugom; W van Gijn; E W Muller; Å Berglund; C B M van den Broek; T Fokstuen; H Gelderblom; E Kapiteijn; J W H Leer; C A M Marijnen; H Martijn; E Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; I D Nagtegaal; L Påhlman; C J A Punt; H Putter; A G H Roodvoets; H J T Rutten; W H Steup; B Glimelius; C J H van de Velde Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Esther M F Wong; Bill M H Lai; Vincent K P Fung; Hester Y S Cheung; W T Ng; Ada L Y Law; Alta Y T Lai; Jennifer L S Khoo Journal: Hong Kong Med J Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 2.227