4.3 Article

Circulating tumor cells: A promising marker of predicting tumor response in rectal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemo-radiation therapy

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 7, Issue 43, Pages 69507-69517

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.10875

Keywords

circulating tumor cells; rectal cancer; neoadjuvant chemo-radiation therapy; prediction

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81401962]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the role of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in assessing and predicting tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Methods: A total of 115 patients with T3-4 and/or N+ rectal cancer were enrolled. All patients received neoadjuvant CRT followed by radical surgery after 6-8 weeks. The pathological results after surgery were evaluated according to tumor regression grade (TRG) classification. Results: Based on TRG score, patients were classified as responders (TRG3-4) and non-responders (TRG0-2). The baseline CTC counts of responders were significantly higher than those of non-responders (44.50 +/- 11.94 vs. 37.67 +/- 15.45, P=0.012). By contrast, the post-CRT CTC counts of responders were significantly lower than those of non-responders (3.61 +/- 2.90 vs. 12.08 +/- 7.40, P<0.001). According to ROC analysis, Delta%CTC (percentage difference in CTC counts between baseline and post-CRT) was identified as the stronger predictor to discriminate responders from non-responders (AUC: 0.860). The results of multivariate analysis also indicated that post-CRT CTC counts and Delta%CTC were significantly and independently associated with tumor response to CRT. Conclusions: The detection of CTCs is a powerful and promising tool for evaluating and predicting responses to neoadjuvant CRT in LARC patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available