Xiaolin Pang1,2, Peiyi Xie2,3, Li Yu4, Haiyang Chen1,2, Jian Zheng1,2, Xiaochun Meng2,3, Xiangbo Wan5,6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 2. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Diseases, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Radiology, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. wanxbo@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 6. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Diseases, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. wanxbo@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The potential of using magnetic resonance image tumour-regression grading (MRI-TRG) system to predict pathological TRG is debatable for locally advanced rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. METHODS: Referring to the American Joint Committee on Cancer/College of American Pathologists (AJCC/CAP) TRG classification scheme, a new four-category MRI-TRG system based on the volumetric analysis of the residual tumour and radiochemotherapy induced anorectal fibrosis was established. The agreement between them was evaluated by Kendall's tau-b test, while Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate survival outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 1033 patients were included. Good agreement between MRI-TRG and AJCC/CAP TRG classifications was observed (k = 0.671). Particularly, as compared with other pairs, MRI-TRG 0 displayed the highest sensitivity [90.1% (95% CI: 84.3-93.9)] and specificity [92.8% (95% CI: 90.4-94.7)] in identifying AJCC/CAP TRG 0 category patients. Except for the survival ratios that were comparable between the MRI-TRG 0 and MRI-TRG 1 categories, any two of the four categories had distinguished 3-year prognosis (all P < 0.05). Cox regression analysis further proved that the MRI-TRG system was an independent prognostic factor (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The new MRI-TRG system might be a surrogate for AJCC/CAP TRG classification scheme. Importantly, the system is a reliable and non-invasive way to identify patients with complete pathological responses.
BACKGROUND: The potential of using magnetic resonance image tumour-regression grading (MRI-TRG) system to predict pathological TRG is debatable for locally advanced rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. METHODS: Referring to the American Joint Committee on Cancer/College of American Pathologists (AJCC/CAP) TRG classification scheme, a new four-category MRI-TRG system based on the volumetric analysis of the residual tumour and radiochemotherapy induced anorectal fibrosis was established. The agreement between them was evaluated by Kendall's tau-b test, while Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate survival outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 1033 patients were included. Good agreement between MRI-TRG and AJCC/CAP TRG classifications was observed (k = 0.671). Particularly, as compared with other pairs, MRI-TRG 0 displayed the highest sensitivity [90.1% (95% CI: 84.3-93.9)] and specificity [92.8% (95% CI: 90.4-94.7)] in identifying AJCC/CAP TRG 0 category patients. Except for the survival ratios that were comparable between the MRI-TRG 0 and MRI-TRG 1 categories, any two of the four categories had distinguished 3-year prognosis (all P < 0.05). Cox regression analysis further proved that the MRI-TRG system was an independent prognostic factor (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The new MRI-TRG system might be a surrogate for AJCC/CAP TRG classification scheme. Importantly, the system is a reliable and non-invasive way to identify patients with complete pathological responses.
Authors: Maxime J M van der Valk; Denise E Hilling; Esther Bastiaannet; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Geerard L Beets; Nuno L Figueiredo; Angelita Habr-Gama; Rodrigo O Perez; Andrew G Renehan; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-06-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Uday B Patel; Fiona Taylor; Lennart Blomqvist; Christopher George; Hywel Evans; Paris Tekkis; Philip Quirke; David Sebag-Montefiore; Brendan Moran; Richard Heald; Ashley Guthrie; Nicola Bees; Ian Swift; Kjell Pennert; Gina Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ke Nie; Liming Shi; Qin Chen; Xi Hu; Salma K Jabbour; Ning Yue; Tianye Niu; Xiaonan Sun Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Al B Benson; Alan P Venook; Mahmoud M Al-Hawary; Lynette Cederquist; Yi-Jen Chen; Kristen K Ciombor; Stacey Cohen; Harry S Cooper; Dustin Deming; Paul F Engstrom; Jean L Grem; Axel Grothey; Howard S Hochster; Sarah Hoffe; Steven Hunt; Ahmed Kamel; Natalie Kirilcuk; Smitha Krishnamurthi; Wells A Messersmith; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; Mary F Mulcahy; James D Murphy; Steven Nurkin; Leonard Saltz; Sunil Sharma; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena M Stoffel; Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb; Christopher G Willett; Evan Wuthrick; Kristina M Gregory; Lisa Gurski; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Fiona G M Taylor; Philip Quirke; Richard J Heald; Brendan J Moran; Lennart Blomqvist; Ian R Swift; David Sebag-Montefiore; Paris Tekkis; Gina Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 44.544