| Literature DB >> 35116355 |
Tianlei Xu1, Zhuo Yu2, Qian Zhang1, Botao Liu1, Yuanxin Li1, Feng Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of tumor deposits (TDs) is only considered in the absence of lymph node metastases (LNMs) in the current TNM staging system. However, the prognostic value of TDs when concomitant with LNM for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of TDs and when concomitant with LNMs in rectal cancer after NCRT.Entities:
Keywords: Tumor deposits (TDs); neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT); novel stage; prognosis; rectal cancer
Year: 2021 PMID: 35116355 PMCID: PMC8799283 DOI: 10.21037/tcr-21-1480
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Cancer Res ISSN: 2218-676X Impact factor: 1.241
Baseline clinicopathological characteristics in rectal cancer with preoperative radiotherapy
| Characteristic | TD-negative (n=8,755), n (%) | TD-positive (n=865), n (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 0.376 | ||
| <65 | 6,022 (68.8) | 608 (70.3) | |
| ≥65 | 1,733 (31.2) | 257 (29.7) | |
| Sex | 0.687 | ||
| Male | 5,409 (61.8) | 528 (61.0) | |
| Female | 3,346 (38.2) | 337 (39.0) | |
| Race | 0.882 | ||
| White | 7,072 (80.8) | 705 (81.5) | |
| Black | 722 (8.2) | 70 (8.1) | |
| Other | 961 (11.0) | 90 (10.4) | |
| T stage | <0.001 | ||
| Tis/T0 | 25 (0.3) | 1 (0.1) | |
| T1–2 | 1,328 (15.2) | 40 (4.6) | |
| T3–4 | 7,214 (82.4) | 807 (93.3) | |
| Tx | 188 (2.1) | 17 (2.0) | |
| N stage | <0.001 | ||
| N0 | 6,446 (73.6) | 0 (0.0) | |
| N1 | 1,691 (19.3) | 696 (80.5) | |
| N2 | 618 (7.1) | 169 (19.5) | |
| M | <0.001 | ||
| M0 | 8,324 (95.1) | 774 (89.5) | |
| M1 | 431 (4.9) | 91 (10.5) | |
| TLN | 0.185 | ||
| <12 | 2,574 (29.4) | 273 (31.6) | |
| ≥12 | 6,181 (70.6) | 592 (68.4) | |
| Perineural invasion | <0.001 | ||
| Positive | 694 (7.9) | 244 (28.2) | |
| Negative | 7,258 (82.9) | 571 (66.0) | |
| Unknow | 803 (9.2) | 50 (5.8) | |
| Histologic type | <0.001 | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 7,299 (94.8) | 798 (92.3) | |
| Mucinous/signet-ring cell carcinoma | 456 (5.2) | 67 (7.7) | |
| Chemotherapy | 0.798 | ||
| Yes | 8,582 (98.0) | 847 (97.9) | |
| No/unknown | 173 (2.0) | 18 (2.1) | |
| Grade | |||
| Well/moderate | 6,807 (77.7) | 629 (72.7) | <0.001 |
| Poor/anaplastic | 835 (9.5) | 143 (16.5) | |
| Unknown | 1,113 (12.7) | 93 (10.8) | |
| CEA | <0.001 | ||
| Positive | 2,725 (31.1) | 377 (43.6) | |
| Negative | 3,551 (40.6) | 285 (32.9) | |
| Unknow | 2,479 (28.3) | 203 (23.5) |
TLN, total lymph node; CEA, carcinoma embryonic antigen.
Univariate and multivariate analyses for the prognostic value of tumor deposits
| Characteristic | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | HR | 95% CI | P | Adjust HR | 95% CI | P | ||
| Age, years | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| <65 | 6,630 (68.9) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | |||
| ≥65 | 2,990 (31.1) | 1.42 | 1.26–1.60 | 1.52 | 1.35–1.71 | |||
| Sex | 0.248 | |||||||
| Male | 6,630 (68.9) | 1 | Reference | |||||
| Female | 2,990 (31.1) | 0.93 | 0.83–1.05 | |||||
| Race | 0.175 | |||||||
| White | 7,777 (80.8) | 1 | Reference | |||||
| Black | 792 (8.2) | 1.19 | 0.98–1.45 | |||||
| Other | 1,051 (10.9) | 0.94 | 0.78–1.15 | |||||
| T stage | <0.001 | 0.001 | ||||||
| Tis/T0 | 26 (0.3) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | |||
| T1–2 | 1,368 (14.2) | 0.79 | 0.25–2.49 | 0.59 | 0.19–1.87 | |||
| T3–4 | 8,021 (83.4) | 1.58 | 0.51–4.91 | 0.89 | 0.29–2.78 | |||
| Tx | 205 (2.1) | 2.18 | 0.61–7.81 | 0.90 | 0.25–3.26 | |||
| LN status | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Negative | 6,811 (70.8) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | |||
| Positive | 2,809 (29.2) | 2.67 | 2.38–3.00 | 2.04 | 1.80–2.31 | |||
| M | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| M0 | 9,098 (94.6) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | |||
| M1 | 522 (5.4) | 4.36 | 3.75–5.08 | 3.02 | 2.58–3.53 | |||
| TDs | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Negative | 8,755 (91.0) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | |||
| Positive | 865 (9.0) | 2.39 | 2.04–2.80 | 1.41 | 1.19–1.67 | |||
| TLN | 0.009 | <0.001 | ||||||
| <12 | 2,847 (29.6) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | |||
| ≥12 | 6,773 (70.4) | 0.85 | 0.76–0.96 | 0.80 | 0.71–0.90 | |||
| Perineural invasion | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Negative | 7,829 (81.4) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | |||
| Positive | 938 (9.8) | 2.86 | 2.47–3.30 | 1.82 | 1.56–2.13 | |||
| Unknow | 853 (8.9) | 1.13 | 0.92–1.38 | 1.12 | 0.91–1.37 | |||
| Histologic type | <0.001 | |||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 9,097 (94.6) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | <0.001 | ||
| Mucinous/signet-ring cell carcinoma | 523 (5.5) | 1.99 | 1.65–2.40 | 1.58 | 1.31–1.91 | |||
| Chemotherapy | 0.003 | |||||||
| Yes | 9,429 (98.0) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | |||
| No/unknown | 191 (2.0) | 0.59 | 042–0.82 | 0.60 | 0.43–0.84 | |||
| Grade | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Well/moderate | 7,436 (77.3) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | |||
| Poor/anaplastic | 978 (10.2) | 2.17 | 1.87–2.51 | 1.73 | 1.49–2.01 | |||
| Unknown | 1,206 (12.5) | 0.86 | 0.70–1.05 | 0.84 | 0.69–1.03 | |||
| CEA | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Negative | 3,836 (39.9) | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | |||
| Positive | 3,102 (32.2) | 1.77. | 1.55–2.03 | 1.39 | 1.21–1.60 | |||
| Unknow | 2,682 (27.9) | 1.17 | 1.01–1.36 | 1.09 | 0.94–1.27 | |||
TLN, total lymph node; CEA, carcinoma embryonic antigen.
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier curves of TDs status in overall patients (A), no lymph node metastasis group (B), ypN1a-b group (C), M1 group (D), ypN2 group (E) and Kaplan-Meier curves comparing survival for LNM−TD−, LNM+TD−, LNM−TD+, and LNM+TD+ (F). TD, tumor deposits; LNM, lymph node metastasis.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier curves of different counts of TDs (A) and positive lymph nodes (B). TD, tumor deposits; PLN, positive lymph node.
Figure 3Cancer-specific survival according to the ypN stage (A), combining TD and LNM counts (B) and the novel N stage. PLNTD, the number of positive lymph nodes plus the number of TDs.
Figure 4TimeROC and decision curve analysis of the novel N stage and ypN stage. TimeROC, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic.