L Schabl, L C Duraes, T Connelly, H Sancheti, J Miller, S R Steele, H Kessler
{"title":"III 期直肠粘液腺癌是否受益于新辅助化疗？","authors":"L Schabl, L C Duraes, T Connelly, H Sancheti, J Miller, S R Steele, H Kessler","doi":"10.1007/s10151-024-03027-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of patients with clinical stage III mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma (M) and non-mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma (NM) and evaluate the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. It was hypothesized that patients with M would fare worse with neoadjuvant chemoradiation than those with NM and that patients with M and NM not receiving chemoradiation would have similar outcomes. Moreover, it was hypothesized that patients with M would have similar outcomes regardless of chemoradiation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study compares eligible patients distributed in three cohorts: (cohort 1) M versus NM, including only patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation; (cohort 2) M versus NM, including only patients treated without neoadjuvant chemoradiation; and (cohort 3) only M patients treated with versus without neoadjuvant chemoradiation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 515 patients with an average age of 58.8 (SD 12.4) years, and 30% were female. Fifty-seven (11.1%) patients had M and 458 (88.9%) had NM. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was administered to 382 (74%) patients, of whom 41 (10.7%) were M and 341 (89.3%) NM. In cohort 1, patients with M had advanced pathological staging (stage 3: M 68% vs. NM 42%; p < 0.001), worse pathological differentiation (poor: M, 37% vs. NM, 11%; p = 0.001), more involved lymph nodes (M 0 [0;7] vs. NM 0 [0;1]; p < 0.001) and a higher rate of local recurrence (M 22% vs. 3%; p < 0.001). Patients with M demonstrated worse 7-year cancer-specific (p = 0.007) and overall survival (p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in cohort 2 and 3.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with clinical stage III mucinous adenocarcinomas may not benefit as much from standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation as their non-mucinous counterparts do.</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"28 1","pages":"146"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does stage III rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma benefit from neoadjuvant chemoradiation?\",\"authors\":\"L Schabl, L C Duraes, T Connelly, H Sancheti, J Miller, S R Steele, H Kessler\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10151-024-03027-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of patients with clinical stage III mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma (M) and non-mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma (NM) and evaluate the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. It was hypothesized that patients with M would fare worse with neoadjuvant chemoradiation than those with NM and that patients with M and NM not receiving chemoradiation would have similar outcomes. Moreover, it was hypothesized that patients with M would have similar outcomes regardless of chemoradiation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study compares eligible patients distributed in three cohorts: (cohort 1) M versus NM, including only patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation; (cohort 2) M versus NM, including only patients treated without neoadjuvant chemoradiation; and (cohort 3) only M patients treated with versus without neoadjuvant chemoradiation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 515 patients with an average age of 58.8 (SD 12.4) years, and 30% were female. Fifty-seven (11.1%) patients had M and 458 (88.9%) had NM. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was administered to 382 (74%) patients, of whom 41 (10.7%) were M and 341 (89.3%) NM. In cohort 1, patients with M had advanced pathological staging (stage 3: M 68% vs. NM 42%; p < 0.001), worse pathological differentiation (poor: M, 37% vs. NM, 11%; p = 0.001), more involved lymph nodes (M 0 [0;7] vs. NM 0 [0;1]; p < 0.001) and a higher rate of local recurrence (M 22% vs. 3%; p < 0.001). Patients with M demonstrated worse 7-year cancer-specific (p = 0.007) and overall survival (p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in cohort 2 and 3.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with clinical stage III mucinous adenocarcinomas may not benefit as much from standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation as their non-mucinous counterparts do.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Techniques in Coloproctology\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Techniques in Coloproctology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-024-03027-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-024-03027-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does stage III rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma benefit from neoadjuvant chemoradiation?
Background: This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of patients with clinical stage III mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma (M) and non-mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma (NM) and evaluate the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. It was hypothesized that patients with M would fare worse with neoadjuvant chemoradiation than those with NM and that patients with M and NM not receiving chemoradiation would have similar outcomes. Moreover, it was hypothesized that patients with M would have similar outcomes regardless of chemoradiation.
Methods: This study compares eligible patients distributed in three cohorts: (cohort 1) M versus NM, including only patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation; (cohort 2) M versus NM, including only patients treated without neoadjuvant chemoradiation; and (cohort 3) only M patients treated with versus without neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
Results: We identified 515 patients with an average age of 58.8 (SD 12.4) years, and 30% were female. Fifty-seven (11.1%) patients had M and 458 (88.9%) had NM. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was administered to 382 (74%) patients, of whom 41 (10.7%) were M and 341 (89.3%) NM. In cohort 1, patients with M had advanced pathological staging (stage 3: M 68% vs. NM 42%; p < 0.001), worse pathological differentiation (poor: M, 37% vs. NM, 11%; p = 0.001), more involved lymph nodes (M 0 [0;7] vs. NM 0 [0;1]; p < 0.001) and a higher rate of local recurrence (M 22% vs. 3%; p < 0.001). Patients with M demonstrated worse 7-year cancer-specific (p = 0.007) and overall survival (p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in cohort 2 and 3.
Conclusion: Patients with clinical stage III mucinous adenocarcinomas may not benefit as much from standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation as their non-mucinous counterparts do.
期刊介绍：
Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work.
Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
