| Literature DB >> 35371304 |
Sener Cihan Md1, Suzan Onol Md2, Selma Sengiz Erhan Md3.
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to investigate whether Computed Tomography (CT) attenuation change is predictive of poor pathological response in patients with gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma who received perioperative fluorouracil (FU), leucovorin (LV), oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) regimen.Entities:
Keywords: Adenocarcinoma; Attenuation in computed tomography; Gastric cancer; Pathologic response; Perioperative chemotherapy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35371304 PMCID: PMC8965131 DOI: 10.7150/jca.67734
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Patient's characteristics and comparison of groups
| Variables | CAP-TRG score | p | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All patients (n=108) | 0-1 (n=31) | >2-3 (n=77) | |||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
|
| 0.166 | ||||||
| Men | 73 | 67.6 | 24 | 77.4 | 49 | 63.6 | |
| Women | 35 | 32.4 | 7 | 22.6 | 28 | 36.4 | |
|
| 0.558 | ||||||
| 0 | 90 | 83.3 | 28 | 90.3 | 62 | 80.5 | |
| 1 | 18 | 15.7 | 3 | 9.7 | 15 | 19.5 | |
|
| 0.077 | ||||||
| Cardia | 30 | 27.8 | 8 | 25.8 | 22 | 28.6 | |
| Corpus | 25 | 23.1 | 12 | 38.7 | 13 | 16.9 | |
| Antrum | 29 | 26.9 | 8 | 25.8 | 21 | 27.3 | |
| Diffuse | 9 | 8.3 | 2 | 6.5 | 7 | 9.1 | |
| GEJ | 15 | 13.9 | 1 | 3.2 | 14 | 18.2 | |
|
|
| ||||||
| 1 | 8 | 7.4 | 5 | 16.1 | 3 | 3.9 | |
| 2 | 47 | 43.5 | 17 | 54.8 | 30 | 39.0 | |
| 3 | 53 | 49.1 | 9 | 29.0 | 44 | 57.1 | |
|
| 1.000 | ||||||
| Diffuse | 16 | 14.8 | 4 | 12.9 | 12 | 15.6 | |
| Intestinal | 92 | 85.2 | 27 | 87.1 | 65 | 84.4 | |
|
|
| ||||||
| T2 | 10 | 9.3 | 8 | 25.8 | 2 | 2.6 | |
| T3 | 57 | 52.8 | 19 | 61.3 | 38 | 49.4 | |
| T4 | 41 | 38.0 | 4 | 12.9 | 37 | 48.1 | |
|
| 0.053 | ||||||
| N0 | 5 | 4.6 | 2 | 6.5 | 3 | 3.9 | |
| N1 | 33 | 30.6 | 12 | 38.7 | 21 | 27.3 | |
| N2 | 38 | 35.2 | 14 | 45.2 | 24 | 31.2 | |
| N3 | 32 | 29.7 | 3 | 9.7 | 29 | 37.7 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Age | 26/78 | 61 | 36/76 | 62 | 26/78 | 59 |
|
| Sedimentation | 3/67 | 32 | 12/67 | 30 | 3/66 | 34 | 0.052 |
| CRP | 1/54 | 10 | 1.84/54 | 5 | 1/48 | 12 |
|
| LDH | 119/892 | 186 | 120/350 | 178 | 119/892 | 200 |
|
| HU at diagnosis | 40/120 | 60.5 | 40/104 | 55 | 40/120 | 62 | 0.071 |
| HU after NACT | 27/100 | 49.5 | 30/94 | 51 | 27/100 | 48 | 0.574 |
| HU change | -34/52 | 12.5 | -34/41 | 7 | -18/52 | 14 |
|
Abbreviations: GEJ: gastroesophageal junction, CRP: C-reactive protein, LDH: Lactate Dehydrogenase HU: Hounsfield units, NACT: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Min: minimum, Max: maximum, CAP: College of American Pathologist, TRG: Tumor response grade.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for no response to NACT
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p | OR | %95 CI | p | OR | %95 CI | |||
| Male vs female | 0.170 | 1.959 | 0.749 | 5.124 | ||||
|
|
| |||||||
| 2 | 0.178 | 2.917 | 0.614 | 13.846 | ||||
| 3 |
| 8.542 | 1.691 | 43.139 | 0.752 | 0.586 | 0.021 | 16.073 |
|
|
| |||||||
| T3 |
| 8 | 1.545 | 41.425 | 0.206 | 4.791 | 0.422 | 54.343 |
| T4 |
| 37 | 5.751 | 238.03 |
| 31.718 | 1.495 | 672.915 |
|
|
| |||||||
| N2 | 1.000 | 1 | 0.394 | 2.54 | ||||
| N3 |
| 5.639 | 1.448 | 21.952 | 0.264 | 5.321 | 0.283 | 100.188 |
|
|
| 0.954 | 0.914 | 0.997 | 0.677 | 1.015 | 0.946 | 1.089 |
| CRP | 0.243 | 1.028 | 0.982 | 1.076 | ||||
| LDH | 0.929 | 1 | 0.996 | 1.003 | ||||
| HU at diagnosis | 0.106 | 1.024 | 0.995 | 1.054 | ||||
| HU change |
| 1.042 | 1.006 | 1.08 |
| 1.11 | 1.006 | 1.224 |
Abbreviations: CRP: C-reactive protein, LDH: Lactate Dehydrogenase HU: Hounsfield units.
Multivariate analysis (Backward method) for no response to NACT
| Variables | P | OR | %95 CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.014 | |||
| T3 | 0.090 | 5.594 | 0.763 | 41.004 |
| T4 |
| 30.601 | 2.855 | 328.024 |
|
| 0.109 | |||
| N2 | 0.127 | 0.344 | 0.087 | 1.353 |
| N3 | 0.497 | 1.951 | 0.284 | 13.405 |
| HU change <10 vs ≥10 |
| 4.607 | 1.355 | 15.671 |
Abbreviations: See Table 1.
Figure 1ROC curve of HU change to predict non-responder patients.
Figure 2Patient responding well to NAC. Free hand circular ROIs covering the same region of pre (a) and post (b) treatment. HU values pre (d) and post (e) NAC. Diffuse fibrosis in pathology specimen (c).
Figure 3Patient responding poorly to NAC. Free hand circular ROIs covering the same region of pre (a) and post (b) NAC. HU values pre (d) and post (e) NAC. Postop pathology specimen. Almost no fibrosis (c).