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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |