4.7 Article

Tumor Regression Grading After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Carcinoma Revisited: Updated Results of the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 32, 期 15, 页码 1554-1562

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.3769

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose We previously described the prognostic impact of tumor regression grading (TRG) on the outcome of patients with rectal carcinoma treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial. Here we report long-term results after a median follow-up of 132 months. Patients and Methods TRG after preoperative CRT was determined in 386 surgical specimens by the amount of viable tumor cells versus fibrosis, ranging from TRG 4 (no viable tumor cells) to TRG 0 (no signs of regression). Clinicopathologic parameters and TRG were correlated to the cumulative incidence of local recurrence, distant metastasis, and disease-free survival (DFS). Results Ten-year cumulative incidence of distant metastasis and DFS were 10.5% and 89.5% for patients with TRG 4 (complete regression), 29.3% and 73.6% for TRG 2 and 3 (intermediate regression), and 39.6% and 63% for TRG 0 and 1 (poor regression), respectively (P = .005 and P = .008, respectively). On multivariable analysis, residual lymph node metastasis (ypN+) and TRG were the only independent prognostic factors for cumulative incidence of distant metastasis (P < .001 and P = .035, respectively) and DFS (P < .001 and P = .039, respectively), whereas local recurrence was significantly affected by ypN status (P < .001) and lymphatic invasion (P = .026). Conclusion Complete and intermediate tumor regressions were associated with improved long-term outcome in patients with rectal carcinoma after preoperative CRT independent of clinicopathologic parameters. This classification system needs to be prospectively tested in multiple data sets to validate its reproducibility in a wider setting. (C) 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据