Instrumental clinical restaging, pathological evaluation, and tumor regression grading: how to assess the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

Pathological Tumor Regression Grade Classifications in Gastrointestinal Cancers: Role on Patients' Prognosis

Preoperative chemotherapy or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy (CRT), followed by surgery, represents the standard approach for locally advanced esophageal, gastric, and rectal carcinomas. To adequately evaluate the effects of neoadjuvant CRT in the resection specimens, several histopathologic tumor regression grade (TRG) scoring systems have been introduced into clinical practice. The primary goal of these TRG systems relies on a correct prognostic stratification of patients in the attempt to help clinical decision-making and influence surgical strategies, postoperative adjuvant therapies, and surveillance intensity. However, most TRG systems suffer from poor reproducibility and low interobserver concordance rates. Many efforts have been made in the identification of alternative, robust, simple, and universally accepted TRG scoring systems, which would help in the comparison of different treatment strategies and in the standardization of multimodal therapies. The aim of this review is to analyze the most commonly used TRG systems in gastrointestinal cancers highlighting their pitfalls and usefulness, depending on the tumor type.

Utility of rectoscopy in the assessment of response to neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The management of locally advanced rectal cancer has changed substantially over the last few decades with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The aim of the present study is to compare the results between neoadjuvant post-treatment rectoscopy and the anatomopathological findings of the surgical specimen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 67 patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the rectum (stages II and III). Two groups were established: One with complete clinical response (cCR) and one without (non-cCR), based on the findings at rectoscopy. Assessment of tumor regression grade in the surgical specimen was determined using Mandard's tumor regression scale.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients showed a cCR. Thirty-five biopsies were negative and 32 were positive for malignancy. All the cCR patients had a negative biopsy (P < 0.0001). All 32 positive biopsies revealed the presence of adenocarcinoma, and of the 35 negative biopsies, 18 had no malignancy and 17 were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma (P < 0.0001). Sixteen of the 17 cCR patients showed a complete pathological response and one patient showed the presence of adenocarcinoma. Of the 50 non-cCR patients 48 revealed the presence of adenocarcinoma and two had absence of malignancy. According to the Mandard classification, 16 of the 17 cCR patients were grade I and 1 grade II; 2 non-cCR patients were grade I, 7 grade II, 13 grade III, 19 grade IV, and 9 grade V.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic and histological findings could be determinants in the assessment of response to neoadjuvant treatment.

Prognostic significance of partial tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complete tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer has been associated with better disease-free and overall survival. The survival experience for patients with partial tumor regression is less clear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the prognostic significance of partial response after preoperative chemotherapy on disease-free survival in rectal cancer patients.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases with no restrictions to October 31, 2012.

STUDY SELECTION

We included long-course radiotherapy that reported the association between degree of tumor regression and disease-free survival of rectal cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

Direct, indirect, and graph methods were used to extract HRs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Study-specific HRs on the disease-free survival were pooled using a random-effects model. Eleven articles in total were selected. Analysis was performed first among the 6 studies that separated partial response from the complete response and later among all 11 of the studies.

RESULTS

Pooled HR was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28-0.85) for the 6 studies that compared partial response with poor response. It was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.25-0.67) when all 11 of the studies were analyzed together.

LIMITATIONS

The studies were limited by not being prospective, randomized trials, and the tumor regression grades were not uniform.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial tumor response is associated with a 50% improvement in disease-free survival and should be considered as a favorable prognostic factor.