Oliver S Chow1, Sujata Patil2, Metin Keskin2, J Joshua Smith2, Maria Widmar2, David D Smith3, Karin Avila2, Jinru Shia2, Peiguo Chu4, Julio Garcia-Aguilar5. 1. Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 3. Division of Biostatistics, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. garciaaj@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is associated with better prognosis and guides management for patients with advanced rectal cancer. Response rates vary between series for unclear reasons. We examine whether the thoroughness of pathologic assessment explains differences in pCR rates. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed pathology reports from patients with stage II/III rectal cancer who underwent chemoradiation and resection in a prospective, multicenter trial. We utilized a novel measure for the thoroughness of pathologic assessment by dividing residual tumor size by the number of cassettes evaluated (tumor size to cassette ratio, TSCR), and evaluated whether TSCR is associated with pCR. We validated our findings using a separate cohort. RESULTS: From the trial cohort, 71 of 247 (29%) patients achieved pCR. The pCR rate ranged from 0 to 45% and mean TSCR ranged 0.29 to 0.87 across 12 institutions. Within each institution, a lower TSCR was associated with pCR, demonstrating a higher degree of thoroughness used for tumors that achieved pCR. Moreover, across all samples, low TSCR was independently associated with pCR on multivariable analysis. This finding was corroborated in a separate cohort of 201 tumors evaluated by five pathologists; each pathologist had a lower mean TSCR for pCR calls compared with non-pCR calls. However, the mean TSCR for an institution was not associated with its overall pCR rate. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists assess rectal cancers that have responded significantly to neoadjuvant therapy more thoroughly. Thoroughness does not appear to explain differences in pCR rates between institutions. Our results suggest pCR is not a sampling artifact.
BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is associated with better prognosis and guides management for patients with advanced rectal cancer. Response rates vary between series for unclear reasons. We examine whether the thoroughness of pathologic assessment explains differences in pCR rates. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed pathology reports from patients with stage II/III rectal cancer who underwent chemoradiation and resection in a prospective, multicenter trial. We utilized a novel measure for the thoroughness of pathologic assessment by dividing residual tumor size by the number of cassettes evaluated (tumor size to cassette ratio, TSCR), and evaluated whether TSCR is associated with pCR. We validated our findings using a separate cohort. RESULTS: From the trial cohort, 71 of 247 (29%) patients achieved pCR. The pCR rate ranged from 0 to 45% and mean TSCR ranged 0.29 to 0.87 across 12 institutions. Within each institution, a lower TSCR was associated with pCR, demonstrating a higher degree of thoroughness used for tumors that achieved pCR. Moreover, across all samples, low TSCR was independently associated with pCR on multivariable analysis. This finding was corroborated in a separate cohort of 201 tumors evaluated by five pathologists; each pathologist had a lower mean TSCR for pCR calls compared with non-pCR calls. However, the mean TSCR for an institution was not associated with its overall pCR rate. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists assess rectal cancers that have responded significantly to neoadjuvant therapy more thoroughly. Thoroughness does not appear to explain differences in pCR rates between institutions. Our results suggest pCR is not a sampling artifact.
Authors: Rolf Sauer; Heinz Becker; Werner Hohenberger; Claus Rödel; Christian Wittekind; Rainer Fietkau; Peter Martus; Jörg Tschmelitsch; Eva Hager; Clemens F Hess; Johann-H Karstens; Torsten Liersch; Heinz Schmidberger; Rudolf Raab Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J V Schou; F O Larsen; L Rasch; D Linnemann; J Langhoff; E Høgdall; D L Nielsen; K Vistisen; A Fromm; B V Jensen Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-04-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Luiz Felipe de Campos-Lobato; Luca Stocchi; Andre da Luz Moreira; Daniel Geisler; David W Dietz; Ian C Lavery; Victor W Fazio; Matthew F Kalady Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Monique Maas; Patty J Nelemans; Vincenzo Valentini; Prajnan Das; Claus Rödel; Li-Jen Kuo; Felipe A Calvo; Julio García-Aguilar; Rob Glynne-Jones; Karin Haustermans; Mohammed Mohiuddin; Salvatore Pucciarelli; William Small; Javier Suárez; George Theodoropoulos; Sebastiano Biondo; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Geerard L Beets Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jochen Gaedcke; Marian Grade; Klaus Jung; Markus Schirmer; Peter Jo; Christoph Obermeyer; Hendrik A Wolff; Markus K Herrmann; Tim Beissbarth; Heinz Becker; Thomas Ried; Michael Ghadimi Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-11-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Katrina A Knight; Ioanna Drami; Donald C McMillan; Paul G Horgan; James H Park; John T Jenkins; Campbell S D Roxburgh Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 4.553