PURPOSE: There has been no comparative study on the clinical value of magnetic resonance tumor regression grade (mrTRG)1-2 and ycT0-1N0 for the prediction of ypT0-1N0 after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for rectal cancer. We compared the diagnostic performance between mrTRG1-2 and ycT0-1N0 for predicting ypT0-1N0 as a selection criterion for non-radical management after CCRT in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 291 patients from three referral hospitals between January 2018 and March 2020. The diagnostic performance of ycT0-1N0 and mrTRG1-2 for the prediction of ypT0-1N0 was compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, negative-predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (23.4%) achieved ypT0-1N0. Nineteen patients (6.5%) had ycT0-1N0, and 91 patients (31.2%) had mrTRG1-2. For predicting ypT0-1N0, ycT0-1N0 had a sensitivity of 16.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.36‒27.10) and positive-predictive value of 57.9% (95% CI: 36.57‒76.63), while mrTRG1-2 had a sensitivity of 58.8% (95% CI: 46.23‒70.63) and positive-predictive value of 44.0% (95% CI: 36.46‒51.74). When predicting ypT0-1N0, mrTRG1-2 showed a higher AUC (0.680, 95% CI: 0.604‒0.756) than ycT0-1N0 (0.563, 95% CI: 0.481‒0.645) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: mrTRG1-2 might be a better indicator than ycT0-1N0 for the selection of non-radical management of advanced rectal cancer post-CCRT. However, additional diagnostic tools are required for predicting ypT0-1N0 because mrTRG1-2 or yc stage on MRI has insufficient evidence for diagnosing ypT0-1N0.
PURPOSE: There has been no comparative study on the clinical value of magnetic resonance tumor regression grade (mrTRG)1-2 and ycT0-1N0 for the prediction of ypT0-1N0 after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for rectal cancer. We compared the diagnostic performance between mrTRG1-2 and ycT0-1N0 for predicting ypT0-1N0 as a selection criterion for non-radical management after CCRT in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 291 patients from three referral hospitals between January 2018 and March 2020. The diagnostic performance of ycT0-1N0 and mrTRG1-2 for the prediction of ypT0-1N0 was compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, negative-predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (23.4%) achieved ypT0-1N0. Nineteen patients (6.5%) had ycT0-1N0, and 91 patients (31.2%) had mrTRG1-2. For predicting ypT0-1N0, ycT0-1N0 had a sensitivity of 16.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.36‒27.10) and positive-predictive value of 57.9% (95% CI: 36.57‒76.63), while mrTRG1-2 had a sensitivity of 58.8% (95% CI: 46.23‒70.63) and positive-predictive value of 44.0% (95% CI: 36.46‒51.74). When predicting ypT0-1N0, mrTRG1-2 showed a higher AUC (0.680, 95% CI: 0.604‒0.756) than ycT0-1N0 (0.563, 95% CI: 0.481‒0.645) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: mrTRG1-2 might be a better indicator than ycT0-1N0 for the selection of non-radical management of advanced rectal cancer post-CCRT. However, additional diagnostic tools are required for predicting ypT0-1N0 because mrTRG1-2 or yc stage on MRI has insufficient evidence for diagnosing ypT0-1N0.
Authors: Suk Hee Heo; Jin Woong Kim; Sang Soo Shin; Yong Yeon Jeong; Heoung-Keun Kang Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: José G Guillem; Jeannine A Ruby; Tobias Leibold; Timothy J Akhurst; Henry W Yeung; Marc J Gollub; Michelle S Ginsberg; Jinru Shia; Arief A Suriawinata; Elyn R Riedel; Madhu Mazumdar; Leonard B Saltz; Bruce D Minsky; Garrett M Nash; Philip B Paty; Larissa K Temple; Martin R Weiser; Steven M Larson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Catherine L C Bryant; Peter J Lunniss; Charles H Knowles; Mohamed A Thaha; Christopher L H Chan Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 41.316
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: Karl-Titus Hoffmann; Beate Rau; Peter Wust; Christian Stroszczynski; Michael Hünerbein; Ulrike Schneider; Roland Felix Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jong Keon Jang; Sang Hyun Choi; Seong Ho Park; Kyung Won Kim; Hyun Jin Kim; Jong Seok Lee; Ah Young Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 5.315