Frederik J van der Sluis1, Henderik L van Westreenen2, Boudewijn van Etten3, Barbara L van Leeuwen3, Geertruida H de Bock4. 1. Department of Surgery, Isala Clinics, Dr. Van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. f.j.van.der.sluis@isala.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Isala Clinics, Dr. Van Heesweg 2, 8025, AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In selected patients, a wait-and-see strategy after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer might be feasible provided that the probability of pathologic complete response (pCR) is high. This study aimed to identify clinical parameters associated with pCR. Furthermore, we attempted to identify subgroups with increased probability of pCR that might aid in clinical decision making. METHODS: A total of 6444 patients that underwent surgical resection of a single primary carcinoma of the rectum after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) between January 2009 and December 2016 in the Netherlands were included in the study. Data on the outcome variable, pCR, and potential covariates were retrieved from a nationwide database. The variables included in the analysis were selected based on previous studies and were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: pCR was observed in 1010 patients (15.7%). Pretreatment clinical tumor stage and signs of obstruction were independently associated with pCR. Nodal stage and presence of metastatic disease decreased chances of pCR significantly. The best response rate was observed in patients diagnosed with a non-obstructive, well-/moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma of the lower rectum with no clinical apparent nodal or distant metastatic disease (pCR ratio 18.8%). The percentage of patients demonstrating pCR decreased in case of symptoms of pretreatment obstruction or poorly differentiated tumors (pCR ratio of 11.8 and 6.7%, respectively). CONCLUSION: This nationwide study confirms several of the previously reported clinical predictors of pCR.
PURPOSE: In selected patients, a wait-and-see strategy after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer might be feasible provided that the probability of pathologic complete response (pCR) is high. This study aimed to identify clinical parameters associated with pCR. Furthermore, we attempted to identify subgroups with increased probability of pCR that might aid in clinical decision making. METHODS: A total of 6444 patients that underwent surgical resection of a single primary carcinoma of the rectum after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) between January 2009 and December 2016 in the Netherlands were included in the study. Data on the outcome variable, pCR, and potential covariates were retrieved from a nationwide database. The variables included in the analysis were selected based on previous studies and were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: pCR was observed in 1010 patients (15.7%). Pretreatment clinical tumor stage and signs of obstruction were independently associated with pCR. Nodal stage and presence of metastatic disease decreased chances of pCR significantly. The best response rate was observed in patients diagnosed with a non-obstructive, well-/moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma of the lower rectum with no clinical apparent nodal or distant metastatic disease (pCR ratio 18.8%). The percentage of patients demonstrating pCR decreased in case of symptoms of pretreatment obstruction or poorly differentiated tumors (pCR ratio of 11.8 and 6.7%, respectively). CONCLUSION: This nationwide study confirms several of the previously reported clinical predictors of pCR.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal; Complete response; Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; Rectal cancer
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: M J Gollub; D H Gultekin; O Akin; R K Do; J L Fuqua; M Gonen; D Kuk; M Weiser; L Saltz; D Schrag; K Goodman; P Paty; J Guillem; G M Nash; L Temple; J Shia; L H Schwartz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-11-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C J Kim; T J Yeatman; D Coppola; A Trotti; B Williams; J S Barthel; W Dinwoodie; R C Karl; J Marcet Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Matthew F Kalady; Luiz Felipe de Campos-Lobato; Luca Stocchi; Daniel P Geisler; David Dietz; Ian C Lavery; Victor W Fazio Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 12.969
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