Title |
Do clinical criteria reflect pathologic complete response in rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy?
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, March 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00384-018-3033-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Aurelie Garant, Livia Florianova, Adrian Gologan, Alan Spatz, Julio Faria, Nancy Morin, Carol-Ann Vasilevsky, Te Vuong |
Abstract |
Clinical complete response (cCR) in rectal cancer is being evaluated as a tool to identify patients who would not require surgery in the curative management of rectal cancer. Our study reviews mucosal changes after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer in patients treated at our center. Pathology reports were retrieved for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) or high-dose rate brachytherapy (HDRBT). The macroscopic appearance of the specimen was compared with pathologic staging. This study included 282 patients: 88 patients underwent neoadjuvant CRT and 194 patients underwent HDRBT; all patients underwent total mesorectal excision (TME). There were 160 male and 122 female patients with a median age of 65 years (range 29-87). The median time between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery was 50 and 58 days. Sixty patients (21.2%) were staged as ypT0N0, 21.2% had a pathologic complete response (pCR), and only 3.2% had a cCR. Of the 67 patients with initial involvement of the circumferential radial margin (CRM), 44 converted to pathologic CRM-. Two hundred seventy-three patients (96.8%) had mucosal abnormalities. Of the 222 patients with residual tumor, 70 patients had no macroscopic tumor visualized but an ulcer in its place. Most patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer have residual mucosal abnormalities which preclude to a cCR as per published criteria from Brazil. Further studies are required to optimize clinical evaluation and MRI imaging in selected patients. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 50% |
Turkey | 1 | 13% |
India | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
Scientists | 3 | 38% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 3 | 15% |
Other | 2 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
Other | 2 | 10% |
Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 40% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 9 | 45% |