Cargando…

Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial

SIMPLE SUMMARY: We compared the pre-planned histopathological responses, such as tumor regression grade (TRG), modified TRG, and dangerous halo (DH) of resected liver metastases, in patients who received modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab and modified FOLFOX6 plus cetuximab for liver-limited colorect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Takahashi, Takao, Ishida, Kazuyuki, Emi, Yasunori, Sakamoto, Michiie, Imura, Johji, Aishima, Shinichi, Muro, Kei, Uetake, Hiroyuki, Oki, Eiji, Katayose, Yu, Yoshida, Kazuhiro, Unno, Michiaki, Hyodo, Ichinosuke, Tomita, Naohiro, Sugihara, Kenichi, Maehara, Yoshihiko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9496839/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36139557
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14184392
_version_ 1784794368732823552
author Takahashi, Takao
Ishida, Kazuyuki
Emi, Yasunori
Sakamoto, Michiie
Imura, Johji
Aishima, Shinichi
Muro, Kei
Uetake, Hiroyuki
Oki, Eiji
Katayose, Yu
Yoshida, Kazuhiro
Unno, Michiaki
Hyodo, Ichinosuke
Tomita, Naohiro
Sugihara, Kenichi
Maehara, Yoshihiko
author_facet Takahashi, Takao
Ishida, Kazuyuki
Emi, Yasunori
Sakamoto, Michiie
Imura, Johji
Aishima, Shinichi
Muro, Kei
Uetake, Hiroyuki
Oki, Eiji
Katayose, Yu
Yoshida, Kazuhiro
Unno, Michiaki
Hyodo, Ichinosuke
Tomita, Naohiro
Sugihara, Kenichi
Maehara, Yoshihiko
author_sort Takahashi, Takao
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: We compared the pre-planned histopathological responses, such as tumor regression grade (TRG), modified TRG, and dangerous halo (DH) of resected liver metastases, in patients who received modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab and modified FOLFOX6 plus cetuximab for liver-limited colorectal metastases from the ATOM trial. We clarified the difference between bevacizumab and cetuximab in terms of histological response. TRG is a useful marker for determining prognosis in both treatments. We also showed, for the first time, that DH is associated with prognosis. ABSTRACT: We compared the preplanned histopathological responses of resected liver metastases from patients who received modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab or modified FOLFOX6 plus cetuximab for liver-limited colorectal metastases in the ATOM trial. Fibrosis and viable tumor cells in tumor regression grade (TRG), infarct-like necrosis in modified TRG (mTRG), and dangerous halo (DH) were assessed. Fifty-five patients (28 and 27 patients in the bevacizumab and cetuximab arms, respectively) were divided into the low (viable tumor cells ≤ 50%) and high (>50%) TRG or mTRG groups. DH was characterized as absent/rare or focal/diffuse. Compared to the bevacizumab arm, the cetuximab arm was more effective, with respect to low TRG (13 vs. 23 patients) and absent/rare DH (14 vs. 19 patients), respectively. Low mTRG was similarly observed in both arms. Low TRG/mTRG and absent/rare DH showed better relapse-free survival (RFS) than high TRG/mTRG and focal/diffuse DH. In the bevacizumab arm, a significant difference in RFS existed between the low and high TRG groups, while in the cetuximab arm, for TRG, mTRG, and DH, the low and absent/rare groups demonstrated significantly longer RFS than the high and focal/diffuse groups, respectively. TRG could estimate RFS in patients who underwent liver metastasectomy after bevacizumab or cetuximab chemotherapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9496839
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94968392022-09-23 Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial Takahashi, Takao Ishida, Kazuyuki Emi, Yasunori Sakamoto, Michiie Imura, Johji Aishima, Shinichi Muro, Kei Uetake, Hiroyuki Oki, Eiji Katayose, Yu Yoshida, Kazuhiro Unno, Michiaki Hyodo, Ichinosuke Tomita, Naohiro Sugihara, Kenichi Maehara, Yoshihiko Cancers (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: We compared the pre-planned histopathological responses, such as tumor regression grade (TRG), modified TRG, and dangerous halo (DH) of resected liver metastases, in patients who received modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab and modified FOLFOX6 plus cetuximab for liver-limited colorectal metastases from the ATOM trial. We clarified the difference between bevacizumab and cetuximab in terms of histological response. TRG is a useful marker for determining prognosis in both treatments. We also showed, for the first time, that DH is associated with prognosis. ABSTRACT: We compared the preplanned histopathological responses of resected liver metastases from patients who received modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab or modified FOLFOX6 plus cetuximab for liver-limited colorectal metastases in the ATOM trial. Fibrosis and viable tumor cells in tumor regression grade (TRG), infarct-like necrosis in modified TRG (mTRG), and dangerous halo (DH) were assessed. Fifty-five patients (28 and 27 patients in the bevacizumab and cetuximab arms, respectively) were divided into the low (viable tumor cells ≤ 50%) and high (>50%) TRG or mTRG groups. DH was characterized as absent/rare or focal/diffuse. Compared to the bevacizumab arm, the cetuximab arm was more effective, with respect to low TRG (13 vs. 23 patients) and absent/rare DH (14 vs. 19 patients), respectively. Low mTRG was similarly observed in both arms. Low TRG/mTRG and absent/rare DH showed better relapse-free survival (RFS) than high TRG/mTRG and focal/diffuse DH. In the bevacizumab arm, a significant difference in RFS existed between the low and high TRG groups, while in the cetuximab arm, for TRG, mTRG, and DH, the low and absent/rare groups demonstrated significantly longer RFS than the high and focal/diffuse groups, respectively. TRG could estimate RFS in patients who underwent liver metastasectomy after bevacizumab or cetuximab chemotherapy. MDPI 2022-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9496839/ /pubmed/36139557 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14184392 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Takahashi, Takao
Ishida, Kazuyuki
Emi, Yasunori
Sakamoto, Michiie
Imura, Johji
Aishima, Shinichi
Muro, Kei
Uetake, Hiroyuki
Oki, Eiji
Katayose, Yu
Yoshida, Kazuhiro
Unno, Michiaki
Hyodo, Ichinosuke
Tomita, Naohiro
Sugihara, Kenichi
Maehara, Yoshihiko
Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial
title Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial
title_full Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial
title_fullStr Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial
title_full_unstemmed Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial
title_short Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial
title_sort pathological evaluation of resected colorectal liver metastases: mfolfox6 plus bevacizumab versus mfolfox6 plus cetuximab in the phase ii atom trial
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9496839/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36139557
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14184392
work_keys_str_mv AT takahashitakao pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT ishidakazuyuki pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT emiyasunori pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT sakamotomichiie pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT imurajohji pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT aishimashinichi pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT murokei pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT uetakehiroyuki pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT okieiji pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT katayoseyu pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT yoshidakazuhiro pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT unnomichiaki pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT hyodoichinosuke pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT tomitanaohiro pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT sugiharakenichi pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial
AT maeharayoshihiko pathologicalevaluationofresectedcolorectallivermetastasesmfolfox6plusbevacizumabversusmfolfox6pluscetuximabinthephaseiiatomtrial