Cargando…
The influence of the treatment response on the impact of resection margin status after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer
BACKGROUND: Circumferential resection margin (CRM) and distal resection margin (DRM) have different impact on clinical outcomes after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery. Effect and adequate length of resection margin as well as impact of treatment response after preoperative CR...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938897/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24304825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-576 |
_version_ | 1782305676700155904 |
---|---|
author | Lee, Joo Ho Chie, Eui Kyu Kim, Kyubo Jeong, Seung-Yong Park, Kyu Joo Park, Jae-Gahb Kang, Gyeong Hoon Han, Sae-Won Oh, Do-Youn Im, Seock-Ah Kim, Tae-You Bang, Yung-Jue Ha, Sung W |
author_facet | Lee, Joo Ho Chie, Eui Kyu Kim, Kyubo Jeong, Seung-Yong Park, Kyu Joo Park, Jae-Gahb Kang, Gyeong Hoon Han, Sae-Won Oh, Do-Youn Im, Seock-Ah Kim, Tae-You Bang, Yung-Jue Ha, Sung W |
author_sort | Lee, Joo Ho |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Circumferential resection margin (CRM) and distal resection margin (DRM) have different impact on clinical outcomes after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery. Effect and adequate length of resection margin as well as impact of treatment response after preoperative CRT was evaluated. METHODS: Total of 403 patients with rectal cancer underwent preoperative CRT followed by total mesorectal excision between January 2004 and December 2010. After applying the criterion of margin less than 0.5 cm for CRM or less than 1 cm for DRM, 151 cases with locally advanced rectal cancer were included as a study cohort. All patients underwent conventionally fractionated radiation with radiation dose over 50 Gy and concurrent chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. Postoperative chemotherapy was administered to 142 patients (94.0%). Median follow-up duration was 43.1 months. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates, and locoregional control rates (LRC) were 84.5%, 72.8%, 74.2%, and 86.3%, respectively. CRM of 1.5 mm and DRM of 7 mm were cutting points showing maximal difference in a maximally selected rank method. In univariate analysis, CRM of 1.5 mm was significantly related with worse clinical outcomes, whereas DRM of 7 mm was not. In multivariate analysis, CRM of 1.5 mm, and ypN were prognosticators for all studied endpoints. However, CRM was not a significant prognostic factor for good responders, defined as patients with near total regression or T down-staging, which was found in 16.5% and 40.5% among studied patients, respectively. In contrast, poor responders demonstrated a significant difference according to the CRM status for all studied end-points. CONCLUSIONS: Close CRM, defined as 1.5 mm, was a significant prognosticator, but the impact was only prominent for poor responders in subgroup analysis. Postoperative treatment strategy may be individualized based on this finding. However, findings from this study need to be validated with larger cohort. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3938897 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39388972014-03-02 The influence of the treatment response on the impact of resection margin status after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer Lee, Joo Ho Chie, Eui Kyu Kim, Kyubo Jeong, Seung-Yong Park, Kyu Joo Park, Jae-Gahb Kang, Gyeong Hoon Han, Sae-Won Oh, Do-Youn Im, Seock-Ah Kim, Tae-You Bang, Yung-Jue Ha, Sung W BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: Circumferential resection margin (CRM) and distal resection margin (DRM) have different impact on clinical outcomes after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery. Effect and adequate length of resection margin as well as impact of treatment response after preoperative CRT was evaluated. METHODS: Total of 403 patients with rectal cancer underwent preoperative CRT followed by total mesorectal excision between January 2004 and December 2010. After applying the criterion of margin less than 0.5 cm for CRM or less than 1 cm for DRM, 151 cases with locally advanced rectal cancer were included as a study cohort. All patients underwent conventionally fractionated radiation with radiation dose over 50 Gy and concurrent chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. Postoperative chemotherapy was administered to 142 patients (94.0%). Median follow-up duration was 43.1 months. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates, and locoregional control rates (LRC) were 84.5%, 72.8%, 74.2%, and 86.3%, respectively. CRM of 1.5 mm and DRM of 7 mm were cutting points showing maximal difference in a maximally selected rank method. In univariate analysis, CRM of 1.5 mm was significantly related with worse clinical outcomes, whereas DRM of 7 mm was not. In multivariate analysis, CRM of 1.5 mm, and ypN were prognosticators for all studied endpoints. However, CRM was not a significant prognostic factor for good responders, defined as patients with near total regression or T down-staging, which was found in 16.5% and 40.5% among studied patients, respectively. In contrast, poor responders demonstrated a significant difference according to the CRM status for all studied end-points. CONCLUSIONS: Close CRM, defined as 1.5 mm, was a significant prognosticator, but the impact was only prominent for poor responders in subgroup analysis. Postoperative treatment strategy may be individualized based on this finding. However, findings from this study need to be validated with larger cohort. BioMed Central 2013-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3938897/ /pubmed/24304825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-576 Text en Copyright © 2013 Lee et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Lee, Joo Ho Chie, Eui Kyu Kim, Kyubo Jeong, Seung-Yong Park, Kyu Joo Park, Jae-Gahb Kang, Gyeong Hoon Han, Sae-Won Oh, Do-Youn Im, Seock-Ah Kim, Tae-You Bang, Yung-Jue Ha, Sung W The influence of the treatment response on the impact of resection margin status after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer |
title | The influence of the treatment response on the impact of resection margin status after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer |
title_full | The influence of the treatment response on the impact of resection margin status after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer |
title_fullStr | The influence of the treatment response on the impact of resection margin status after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | The influence of the treatment response on the impact of resection margin status after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer |
title_short | The influence of the treatment response on the impact of resection margin status after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer |
title_sort | influence of the treatment response on the impact of resection margin status after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3938897/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24304825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-576 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leejooho theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT chieeuikyu theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT kimkyubo theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT jeongseungyong theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT parkkyujoo theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT parkjaegahb theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT kanggyeonghoon theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT hansaewon theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT ohdoyoun theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT imseockah theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT kimtaeyou theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT bangyungjue theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT hasungw theinfluenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT leejooho influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT chieeuikyu influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT kimkyubo influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT jeongseungyong influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT parkkyujoo influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT parkjaegahb influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT kanggyeonghoon influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT hansaewon influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT ohdoyoun influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT imseockah influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT kimtaeyou influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT bangyungjue influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer AT hasungw influenceofthetreatmentresponseontheimpactofresectionmarginstatusafterpreoperativechemoradiotherapyinlocallyadvancedrectalcancer |