Xingxing Wang1, Hao Wang2, Haixing Wang1, Jie Huang1, Xin Wang1, Zhengzeng Jiang1, Lijie Tan2, Dongxian Jiang3, Yingyong Hou4,5,6. 1. Department of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Thoracic surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. jiangdongxian3@aliyun.com. 4. Department of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. houyingyong@aliyun.com. 5. Department of Pathology, School of Basic Medical Sciences & Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People's Republic of China. houyingyong@aliyun.com. 6. Department of Pathology, Qingpu Branch of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 201700, People's Republic of China. houyingyong@aliyun.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We assessed visual residual tumour cells (VRTC) with both Becker's tumour regression grading (TRG) system and Japanese TRG system in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery. METHODS: We compared Becker system and Japanese system in 175 ESCC patients treated between 2009 and 2015. RESULTS: According to Becker system, the 5-year DFS/DSS rates were 70.0%/89.3, 53.8%/56.7, 43.0%/49.0, and 42.4%/39.1% for TRG 1a (VRTC 0), TRG 1b (1-10%), TRG 2 (11-50%), and TRG 3 (> 50%). According to Japanese system, the rates were 38.8%/34.1, 49.5%/58.7, 50.2%/49.0 and 70.0%/89.3% for Grade 0-1a (VRTC> 66.6%), Grade 1b (33.3-66.6%), Grade 2 (1-33.3%) and Grade 3 (0). TRG according to two systems significantly discriminate the patients' prognosis. TRG according to Becker system (HR 2.662, 95% CI 1.151-6.157), and lymph node metastasis (HR 2.567, 95% CI 1.442-4.570) were independent parameters of DSS. CONCLUSIONS: Both Becker and Japanese system had their advantage in risk stratification of these ESCC patients. It was speculated that dividing 1-10% VRTC into a group might contribute to independently prognostic significance of Becker's TRG system. Therefore, in addition to TRG of different systems, the percentage of VRTC might be recommended in the pathologic report, which could make the results more comparable among different researches, and more understandable for oncologists in the clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: We assessed visual residual tumour cells (VRTC) with both Becker's tumour regression grading (TRG) system and Japanese TRG system in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery. METHODS: We compared Becker system and Japanese system in 175 ESCC patients treated between 2009 and 2015. RESULTS: According to Becker system, the 5-year DFS/DSS rates were 70.0%/89.3, 53.8%/56.7, 43.0%/49.0, and 42.4%/39.1% for TRG 1a (VRTC 0), TRG 1b (1-10%), TRG 2 (11-50%), and TRG 3 (> 50%). According to Japanese system, the rates were 38.8%/34.1, 49.5%/58.7, 50.2%/49.0 and 70.0%/89.3% for Grade 0-1a (VRTC> 66.6%), Grade 1b (33.3-66.6%), Grade 2 (1-33.3%) and Grade 3 (0). TRG according to two systems significantly discriminate the patients' prognosis. TRG according to Becker system (HR 2.662, 95% CI 1.151-6.157), and lymph node metastasis (HR 2.567, 95% CI 1.442-4.570) were independent parameters of DSS. CONCLUSIONS: Both Becker and Japanese system had their advantage in risk stratification of these ESCC patients. It was speculated that dividing 1-10% VRTC into a group might contribute to independently prognostic significance of Becker's TRG system. Therefore, in addition to TRG of different systems, the percentage of VRTC might be recommended in the pathologic report, which could make the results more comparable among different researches, and more understandable for oncologists in the clinical practice.
Authors: Lucian R Chirieac; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; Ritsuko R Komaki; Arlene M Correa; Jeffrey S Morris; Jack A Roth; Asif Rashid; Stanley R Hamilton; Tsung-Teh Wu Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christina Fitzmaurice; Daniel Dicker; Amanda Pain; Hannah Hamavid; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Michael F MacIntyre; Christine Allen; Gillian Hansen; Rachel Woodbrook; Charles Wolfe; Randah R Hamadeh; Ami Moore; Andrea Werdecker; Bradford D Gessner; Braden Te Ao; Brian McMahon; Chante Karimkhani; Chuanhua Yu; Graham S Cooke; David C Schwebel; David O Carpenter; David M Pereira; Denis Nash; Dhruv S Kazi; Diego De Leo; Dietrich Plass; Kingsley N Ukwaja; George D Thurston; Kim Yun Jin; Edgar P Simard; Edward Mills; Eun-Kee Park; Ferrán Catalá-López; Gabrielle deVeber; Carolyn Gotay; Gulfaraz Khan; H Dean Hosgood; Itamar S Santos; Janet L Leasher; Jasvinder Singh; James Leigh; Jost B Jonas; Jost Jonas; Juan Sanabria; Justin Beardsley; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Ken Takahashi; Richard C Franklin; Luca Ronfani; Marcella Montico; Luigi Naldi; Marcello Tonelli; Johanna Geleijnse; Max Petzold; Mark G Shrime; Mustafa Younis; Naohiro Yonemoto; Nicholas Breitborde; Paul Yip; Farshad Pourmalek; Paulo A Lotufo; Alireza Esteghamati; Graeme J Hankey; Raghib Ali; Raimundas Lunevicius; Reza Malekzadeh; Robert Dellavalle; Robert Weintraub; Robyn Lucas; Roderick Hay; David Rojas-Rueda; Ronny Westerman; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Sandra Nolte; Scott Patten; Scott Weichenthal; Semaw Ferede Abera; Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad; Ivy Shiue; Tim Driscoll; Tommi Vasankari; Ubai Alsharif; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Vasiliy V Vlassov; W S Marcenes; Wubegzier Mekonnen; Yohannes Adama Melaku; Yuichiro Yano; Al Artaman; Ismael Campos; Jennifer MacLachlan; Ulrich Mueller; Daniel Kim; Matias Trillini; Babak Eshrati; Hywel C Williams; Kenji Shibuya; Rakhi Dandona; Kinnari Murthy; Benjamin Cowie; Azmeraw T Amare; Carl Abelardo Antonio; Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela; Coen H van Gool; Francesco Violante; In-Hwan Oh; Kedede Deribe; Kjetil Soreide; Luke Knibbs; Maia Kereselidze; Mark Green; Rosario Cardenas; Nobhojit Roy; Taavi Tillmann; Taavi Tillman; Yongmei Li; Hans Krueger; Lorenzo Monasta; Subhojit Dey; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; G Anil Kumar; Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy; Lalit Dandona; Haidong Wang; Stein Emil Vollset; Ali Mokdad; Joshua A Salomon; Rafael Lozano; Theo Vos; Mohammad Forouzanfar; Alan Lopez; Christopher Murray; Mohsen Naghavi Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: M Thomas; C Rübe; M Semik; M von Eiff; L Freitag; H N Macha; W Wagner; F Klinke; H H Scheld; N Willich; W E Berdel; K Junker Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel King Hung Tong; Simon Law; Dora Lai Wan Kwong; Kwok Wah Chan; Alfred King Yin Lam; Kam Ho Wong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Shu Jie Huang; Dan Tian; Si Chao Wang; Rui Jie Zeng; Yue Jiao Dong; Liang Li Hong; Han Sheng Wu; Fang Ping Xu; Dong Kun Zhang; Liang Xie; Hai Yu Zhou; Ji Ming Tang; Xiao Song Ben; Gang Chen; Ri Xin Chen; Yong Tang; Gui Bin Qiao Journal: World J Oncol Date: 2022-08-23