Histopathological regression grading versus staging of rectal cancer following radiotherapy. Pathology. 2011;43:24-30. [PMID: 21240061 DOI: 10.1097/pat.0b013e328340bb5b]

Defining response to radiotherapy in rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological scales

AIM

To define good and poor regression using pathology and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) regression scales after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on all studies up to December 2015, without language restriction, that were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960-2015), and EMBASE (1991-2015). Searches were performed of article bibliographies and conference abstracts. MeSH and text words used included “tumour regression”, “mrTRG”, “poor response” and “colorectal cancers”. Clinical studies using either MRI or histopathological tumour regression grade (TRG) scales to define good and poor responders were included in relation to outcomes [local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS)]. There was no age restriction or stage of cancer restriction for patient inclusion. Data were extracted by two authors working independently and using pre-defined outcome measures.

RESULTS

Quantitative data (prevalence) were extracted and analysed according to meta-analytical techniques using comprehensive meta-analysis. Qualitative data (LR, DR, DFS and OS) were presented as ranges. The overall proportion of poor responders after neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) was 37.7% (95%CI: 30.1-45.8). There were 19 different reported histopathological scales and one MRI regression scale (mrTRG). Clinical studies used nine and six histopathological scales for poor and good responders, respectively. All studies using MRI to define good and poor response used one scale. The most common histopathological definition for good response was the Mandard grades 1 and 2 or Dworak grades 3 and 4; Mandard 3, 4 and 5 and Dworak 0, 1 and 2 were used for poor response. For histopathological grades, the 5-year outcomes for poor responders were LR 3.4%-4.3%, DR 14.3%-20.3%, DFS 61.7%-68.1% and OS 60.7-69.1. Good pathological response 5-year outcomes were LR 0%-1.8%, DR 0%-11.6%, DFS 78.4%-86.7%, and OS 77.4%-88.2%. A poor response on MRI (mrTRG 4,5) resulted in 5-year LR 4%-29%, DR 9%, DFS 31%-59% and OS 27%-68%. The 5-year outcomes with a good response on MRI (mrTRG 1,2 and 3) were LR 1%-14%, DR 3%, DFS 64%-83% and OS 72%-90%.

CONCLUSION

For histopathology regression assessment, Mandard 1, 2/Dworak 3, 4 should be used for good response and Mandard 3, 4, 5/Dworak 0, 1, 2 for poor response. MRI indicates good and poor response by mrTRG1-3 and mrTRG4-5, respectively.

Interobserver agreement of radiologists assessing the response of rectal cancers to preoperative chemoradiation using the MRI tumour regression grading (mrTRG)

AIM

To investigate whether the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tumour regression grading (mrTRG) scale can be taught effectively resulting in a clinically reasonable interobserver agreement (>0.4; moderate to near perfect agreement).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study examines the interobserver agreement of mrTRG, between 35 radiologists and a central reviewer. Two workshops were organised for radiologists to assess regression of rectal cancers on MRI staging scans. A range of mrTRGs on 12 patient scans were used for assessment.

RESULTS

Kappa agreement ranged from 0.14-0.82 with a median value of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.37-0.77) indicating good overall agreement. Eight (26%) radiologists had very good/near perfect agreement (κ>0.8). Six (19%) radiologists had good agreement (0.8≥κ>0.6) and a further 12 (39%) had moderate agreement (0.6≥κ>0.4). Five (16%) radiologists had a fair agreement (0.4≥κ>0.2) and two had poor agreement (0.2>κ). There was a tendency towards good agreement (skewness: 0.92). In 65.9% and 90% of cases the radiologists were able to correctly highlight good and poor responders, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of the response of rectal cancers to chemoradiation therapy may be performed effectively using mrTRG. Radiologists can be taught the mrTRG scale. Even with minimal training, good agreement with the central reviewer along with effective differentiation between good and intermediate/poor responders can be achieved. Focus should be on facilitating the identification of good responders. It is predicted that with more intensive interactive case-based learning a κ>0.8 is likely to be achieved. Testing and retesting is recommended.

Role of phytochemicals in the inhibition of epithelial–mesenchymal transition in cancer metastasis

Epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) development is controlled by several signaling pathways including Hedgehog, Wnt, fibroblast growth factors (FGF), hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor (HGF),etc. Phytochemicals is very promising therapeutic candidate that inhibit the progression of EMT by inhibiting the signaling pathways.

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.

Epithelial mesenchymal transition in colorectal cancer: Seminal role in promoting disease progression and resistance to neoadjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT) may be physiological as part of embryological development, or pathological as part of cancer development. It is one of the key initiating events in the metastatic cascade. EMT has profound effects on tumour cell invasiveness, proliferation and motility. In the present article we aimed to review the potential role of EMT as a process to explain colorectal cancer progression and resistance to neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODS

Extensive literature searches were performed in Pubmed, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant articles published before March 2012.

RESULTS

There is adequate evidence to support the complex upstream signalling alterations needed for EMT to occur in colorectal cancers. Changes of EMT are likely to be found at the tumour invasive front: the deepest, growing tumour margin. Loss of E-cadherin at the cell membrane causes loss of cellular integrity, with subsequent migration of malignant cells and tumour budding. These processes are associated with metastases and recurrence of colorectal cancer. There is early evidence from a limited number of studies that resistance to neoadjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer is associated with changes of EMT. However, there is a lack of supporting evidence originating from human colorectal cancer tissues.

CONCLUSIONS

Emerging evidence demonstrates that development of EMT in colorectal cancer leads to an aggressive phenotype that may promote metastatic spread, and augment treatment resistance during neoadjuvant therapy. A clearer understanding of the processes and role of EMT in colorectal cancer may also highlight novel therapeutic strategies.

International study group on rectal cancer regression grading: interobserver variability with commonly used regression grading systems

The aim of this study was to ascertain the level of concordance among gastrointestinal pathologists for regression grading in rectal cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Seventeen gastrointestinal pathologists participated using the Mandard, Dworak, and modified rectal cancer regression grading systems to grade 10 representative slides that were selected from 10 cases of rectal cancer treated with long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The slides were scanned with a whole-slide scanner generating dynamic digitized images. The results showed very little concordance across the 3 grading systems, with κ values of 0.28, 0.35, and 0.38 for the Mandard, Dworak, and modified rectal cancer regression grading systems, respectively. In only 1 of 10 study cases was there unanimous grading concordance using the modified rectal cancer regression grading system. It was felt that these systems lacked precision and clarity for reproducible, accurate regression grading. The study concluded that there was a need for a simple, reproducible regression grading system with clear criteria, a cumulative or composite score taking into account all sections of the tumor bed that is sampled rather than the worst section (highest grade), and there should be a uniform method of sampling of these specimens.