[Prognostic factors and survival analysis in rectal cancer patients with poor response to neoadjuvant therapy].

Q3 Medicine
H B Li, Y Qian, K X Li, C Wang, Z Sun, X Y Sun, L Xu, G N Zhang, B Wu, G L Lin, J Y Lu, K Hu, Y Xiao
{"title":"[Prognostic factors and survival analysis in rectal cancer patients with poor response to neoadjuvant therapy].","authors":"H B Li, Y Qian, K X Li, C Wang, Z Sun, X Y Sun, L Xu, G N Zhang, B Wu, G L Lin, J Y Lu, K Hu, Y Xiao","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20240323-00108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To compare the impact of different treatment strategies on the survival outcomes in rectal cancer patients with poor response to neoadjuvant therapy, and to explore the survival-related influencing factors. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Between January 2018 and November 2022, the clinical, pathological, and follow-up data of 106 rectal cancer patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and were evaluated as grade 4 or 5 based on the Magnetic Resonance Tumor Regression Grade (mrTRG) from the rectal cancer database at Peking Union Medical College Hospital were retrospectively collected. Based on the post-neoadjuvant therapy assessment, patients were classified into three groups: the chemotherapy-radiotherapy group (23 patients), the consolidation therapy group (18 patients), and the standard treatment group (65 patients). General condition, pathological findings, selection of neoadjuvant therapy, comorbidities, as well as 3-year expected DMFS and OS were observed in the three groups. <b>Results:</b> All 106 patients were followed up, with a median follow-up time of 28 (21, 38) months. The overall 3-year DMFS rate was 60%, and the 3-year OS rate was 74%. The 3-year DMFS in the standard treatment and consolidation therapy groups were 74% and 72%, respectively; the 3-year OS were 84%, 81%, respectively. The Log-rank test showed that there was no significant difference in the 3-year expected DMFS and OS between the standard treatment group and the consolidation therapy group (both <i>P</i>>0.05), but both groups had better survival outcomes than the chemotherapy-radiotherapy group (10% and 39%, respectively; all <i>P</i><0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that the chemotherapy-radiotherapy only regimen was an independent risk factor for DMFS (HR=12.425, 95% CI: 4.436-34.594, <i>P</i><0.001), and the independent risk factors for OS were chemotherapy-radiotherapy only regimen (HR=8.991, 95%CI:2.220-36.403, <i>P</i>=0.002) and age≥65 years (HR=3.495, 95%CI: 1.017-12.009, <i>P</i>=0.047). Stratified analysis showed that chemotherapy-radiotherapy only regimen was the independent risk factors for DMFS and OS in patients with extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) positive (<i>n</i>=66) and mesorectal fascial invasion (MRF) positive (n=56) (all <i>P</i><0.05). Whether consolidation therapy was added to the standard neoadjuvant treatment regimen was not an independent factor affecting 3-year expected DMFS or OS in rectal cancer patients with poor response to neoadjuvant therapy. Further comparisons between the standard neoadjuvant treatment and consolidation therapy groups showed no statistically significant differences in spincter-preservation rate or postoperative complication rates (both <i>P</i>>0.05). However, the consolidation therapy group had a longer interval between the end of radiotherapy and surgery [80.1 (50.8, 109.4) days vs. 61.8 (48.8, 74.8) days, <i>P</i><0.001], and a higher incidence of chemotherapy-related adverse effects ([10/18] vs. 26.2% [17/65], <i>P</i>=0.018). <b>Conclusion:</b> In rectal cancer patients with poor response to neoadjuvant therapy and clear adverse prognostic features before surgery (locally advanced stage, MRF positive or EMVI positive), the addition of short- or long-course chemotherapy-based systemic therapy does not provide short- or long-term survival benefits. Moreover, an extended chemotherapy duration increases the incidence of chemotherapy-related adverse effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":23959,"journal":{"name":"中华胃肠外科杂志","volume":"28 1","pages":"48-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华胃肠外科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20240323-00108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the impact of different treatment strategies on the survival outcomes in rectal cancer patients with poor response to neoadjuvant therapy, and to explore the survival-related influencing factors. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Between January 2018 and November 2022, the clinical, pathological, and follow-up data of 106 rectal cancer patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and were evaluated as grade 4 or 5 based on the Magnetic Resonance Tumor Regression Grade (mrTRG) from the rectal cancer database at Peking Union Medical College Hospital were retrospectively collected. Based on the post-neoadjuvant therapy assessment, patients were classified into three groups: the chemotherapy-radiotherapy group (23 patients), the consolidation therapy group (18 patients), and the standard treatment group (65 patients). General condition, pathological findings, selection of neoadjuvant therapy, comorbidities, as well as 3-year expected DMFS and OS were observed in the three groups. Results: All 106 patients were followed up, with a median follow-up time of 28 (21, 38) months. The overall 3-year DMFS rate was 60%, and the 3-year OS rate was 74%. The 3-year DMFS in the standard treatment and consolidation therapy groups were 74% and 72%, respectively; the 3-year OS were 84%, 81%, respectively. The Log-rank test showed that there was no significant difference in the 3-year expected DMFS and OS between the standard treatment group and the consolidation therapy group (both P>0.05), but both groups had better survival outcomes than the chemotherapy-radiotherapy group (10% and 39%, respectively; all P<0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that the chemotherapy-radiotherapy only regimen was an independent risk factor for DMFS (HR=12.425, 95% CI: 4.436-34.594, P<0.001), and the independent risk factors for OS were chemotherapy-radiotherapy only regimen (HR=8.991, 95%CI:2.220-36.403, P=0.002) and age≥65 years (HR=3.495, 95%CI: 1.017-12.009, P=0.047). Stratified analysis showed that chemotherapy-radiotherapy only regimen was the independent risk factors for DMFS and OS in patients with extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) positive (n=66) and mesorectal fascial invasion (MRF) positive (n=56) (all P<0.05). Whether consolidation therapy was added to the standard neoadjuvant treatment regimen was not an independent factor affecting 3-year expected DMFS or OS in rectal cancer patients with poor response to neoadjuvant therapy. Further comparisons between the standard neoadjuvant treatment and consolidation therapy groups showed no statistically significant differences in spincter-preservation rate or postoperative complication rates (both P>0.05). However, the consolidation therapy group had a longer interval between the end of radiotherapy and surgery [80.1 (50.8, 109.4) days vs. 61.8 (48.8, 74.8) days, P<0.001], and a higher incidence of chemotherapy-related adverse effects ([10/18] vs. 26.2% [17/65], P=0.018). Conclusion: In rectal cancer patients with poor response to neoadjuvant therapy and clear adverse prognostic features before surgery (locally advanced stage, MRF positive or EMVI positive), the addition of short- or long-course chemotherapy-based systemic therapy does not provide short- or long-term survival benefits. Moreover, an extended chemotherapy duration increases the incidence of chemotherapy-related adverse effects.

[对新辅助治疗反应不良的直肠癌患者预后因素及生存分析]。
目的:比较不同治疗策略对新辅助治疗反应较差的直肠癌患者生存结局的影响,探讨其生存相关的影响因素。方法:采用回顾性队列研究。回顾性收集2018年1月至2022年11月北京协和医院直肠癌数据库中106例接受新辅助治疗并根据磁共振肿瘤消退分级(mrTRG)评价为4级或5级的直肠癌患者的临床、病理及随访资料。根据新辅助治疗后的评估,将患者分为三组:放化疗组(23例)、巩固治疗组(18例)和标准治疗组(65例)。观察三组患者的一般情况、病理表现、新辅助治疗的选择、合并症、3年预期DMFS和OS。结果:106例患者均获得随访,中位随访时间28(21,38)个月。总体3年DMFS率为60%,3年OS率为74%。标准治疗组和巩固治疗组3年DMFS分别为74%和72%;3年生存率分别为84%、81%。Log-rank检验显示,标准治疗组和巩固治疗组的3年预期DMFS和OS无显著差异(P均为0.05),但两组的生存结局均优于化疗-放疗组(分别为10%和39%;所有PPP=0.002),年龄≥65岁(HR=3.495, 95%CI: 1.017-12.009, P=0.047)。分层分析显示,化疗+放疗方案是外膜血管侵犯(EMVI)阳性(n=66)和直肠系膜筋膜侵犯(MRF)阳性(n=56)患者DMFS和OS的独立危险因素(p < 0.05)。而巩固治疗组放疗结束至手术时间间隔较长[80.1(50.8,109.4)天比61.8(48.8,74.8)天,PP=0.018]。结论:对于术前对新辅助治疗反应不佳且预后不良特征明确的直肠癌患者(局部晚期、MRF阳性或EMVI阳性),增加短期或长期化疗为基础的全身治疗并不能提供短期或长期的生存益处。此外,化疗时间的延长增加了化疗相关不良反应的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
中华胃肠外科杂志
中华胃肠外科杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6776
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信