1
|
Lai MY, Kang SY, Sun YT, Quan TT, Lu SX, He CY, Zhou ZW, Yang LQ, Luo HY, Wang FH, Li YH, Xu RH, Guan WL, Qiu MZ. Comparison of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and tumor regression grade in evaluating the effect of preoperative systemic therapy of gastric cancer. BMC Cancer 2022; 22:1031. [PMID: 36183074 PMCID: PMC9526302 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10125-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2022] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and tumor regression grade (TRG) play key roles in evaluating tumor response. We analyzed the consistency of TRG and RECIST 1.1 for gastric cancer (GC) patients and compared their prognostic values. METHODS Patients with GC who received preoperative chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy and had records of TRG from December 2013 to October 2021 were enrolled retrospectively. TRG 0-1 and 2-3 are considered as corresponding to complete response (CR)/partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD)/progress disease (PD) in RECIST 1.1, respectively. The primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The consistency of RECIST and TRG was examined by kappa statistics. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan Meier method. RESULT One hundred fifty seven GC patients were enrolled, including 125 with preoperative chemotherapy and 32 with chemoimmunotherapy. Among them, 56 patients had measurable lesions. Only 19.6% (11/56) of the patients had consistent results between RECIST 1.1 and TRG. TRG was correlated with both OS and DFS (P = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively) while response according to RECIST1.1 was not (P = 0.86 and 0.23, respectively). The median DFS had not reached in the TRG 0-1 group and was 16.13 months in TRG 2-3 group. TRG 2-3 was associated with young age and peritoneal or liver metastasis. Besides, preoperative chemoimmunotherapy had a significantly higher pCR rate than chemotherapy alone (34.4% vs 8.0%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION TRG was in poor agreement with RECIST 1.1. TRG was better than RECIST 1.1 in predicting DFS and OS for GC patients who received preoperative therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ming-Yu Lai
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Shi-Yang Kang
- Department of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Yu-Ting Sun
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Ting-Ting Quan
- Department of Image, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Shi-Xun Lu
- Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Cai-Yun He
- Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Zhi-Wei Zhou
- Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Li-Qiong Yang
- Department of Experiment, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Hui-Yan Luo
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Feng-Hua Wang
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Yu-Hong Li
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Rui-Hua Xu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Wen-Long Guan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
| | - Miao-Zhen Qiu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
| |
Collapse
|