Prevalence of nodal involvement in rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy.
Journal
The British journal of surgery
ISSN: 1365-2168
Titre abrégé: Br J Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 10 2021
23 10 2021
Historique:
received:
28
12
2020
accepted:
28
04
2021
pubmed:
10
7
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
9
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of ypN+ status according to ypT category in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision, and to assess the impact of ypN+ on disease recurrence and survival by pooled analysis of individual-patient data. Individual-patient data from 10 studies of chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer were included. Pooled rates of ypN+ disease were calculated with 95 per cent confidence interval for each ypT category. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were undertaken to assess influence of ypN status on 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Data on 1898 patients were included in the study. Median follow-up was 50 (range 0-219) months. The pooled rate of ypN+ disease was 7 per cent for ypT0, 12 per cent for ypT1, 17 per cent for ypT2, 40 per cent for ypT3, and 46 per cent for ypT4 tumours. Patients with ypN+ disease had lower 5-year DFS and OS (46.2 and 63.4 per cent respectively) than patients with ypN0 tumours (74.5 and 83.2 per cent) (P < 0.001). Cox regression analyses showed ypN+ status to be an independent predictor of recurrence and death. Risk of nodal metastases (ypN+) after chemoradiotherapy increases with advancing ypT category and needs to be considered if an organ-preserving strategy is contemplated. When patients are diagnosed with rectal cancer and the tumour grows beyond the rectal wall there is a high risk that the tumour has spread to nearby lymph nodes. This study showed that this relationship between tumour invasion depth and lymph node involvement is similar after treatment with (chemo)radiotherapy. Patients who have tumour cells remaining in the lymph nodes after (chemo) radiotherapy have a worse prognosis than patients who do not have cancer cells remaining in the lymph nodes. When an organ-preserving treatment is considered as an alternative therapy, this should be kept in mind during patient counselling.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of ypN+ status according to ypT category in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision, and to assess the impact of ypN+ on disease recurrence and survival by pooled analysis of individual-patient data.
METHODS
Individual-patient data from 10 studies of chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer were included. Pooled rates of ypN+ disease were calculated with 95 per cent confidence interval for each ypT category. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were undertaken to assess influence of ypN status on 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Data on 1898 patients were included in the study. Median follow-up was 50 (range 0-219) months. The pooled rate of ypN+ disease was 7 per cent for ypT0, 12 per cent for ypT1, 17 per cent for ypT2, 40 per cent for ypT3, and 46 per cent for ypT4 tumours. Patients with ypN+ disease had lower 5-year DFS and OS (46.2 and 63.4 per cent respectively) than patients with ypN0 tumours (74.5 and 83.2 per cent) (P < 0.001). Cox regression analyses showed ypN+ status to be an independent predictor of recurrence and death.
CONCLUSION
Risk of nodal metastases (ypN+) after chemoradiotherapy increases with advancing ypT category and needs to be considered if an organ-preserving strategy is contemplated.
When patients are diagnosed with rectal cancer and the tumour grows beyond the rectal wall there is a high risk that the tumour has spread to nearby lymph nodes. This study showed that this relationship between tumour invasion depth and lymph node involvement is similar after treatment with (chemo)radiotherapy. Patients who have tumour cells remaining in the lymph nodes after (chemo) radiotherapy have a worse prognosis than patients who do not have cancer cells remaining in the lymph nodes. When an organ-preserving treatment is considered as an alternative therapy, this should be kept in mind during patient counselling.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
When patients are diagnosed with rectal cancer and the tumour grows beyond the rectal wall there is a high risk that the tumour has spread to nearby lymph nodes. This study showed that this relationship between tumour invasion depth and lymph node involvement is similar after treatment with (chemo)radiotherapy. Patients who have tumour cells remaining in the lymph nodes after (chemo) radiotherapy have a worse prognosis than patients who do not have cancer cells remaining in the lymph nodes. When an organ-preserving treatment is considered as an alternative therapy, this should be kept in mind during patient counselling.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34240110
pii: 6317553
doi: 10.1093/bjs/znab194
pmc: PMC8604154
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1251-1258Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014 Oct;140(10):1651-60
pubmed: 24880919
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jul 1;53(3):664-74
pubmed: 12062610
Dis Colon Rectum. 2002 Jul;45(7):895-903
pubmed: 12130878
Lancet. 1986 Jun 28;1(8496):1479-82
pubmed: 2425199
Dis Colon Rectum. 2004 Nov;47(11):1798-807
pubmed: 15622571
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2006 Jan;21(1):11-7
pubmed: 15864605
Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Oct;14(10):2766-72
pubmed: 17551794
Arch Public Health. 2014 Nov 10;72(1):39
pubmed: 25810908
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Mar 15;64(4):1122-8
pubmed: 16406393
Radiology. 2013 Oct;269(1):101-12
pubmed: 23801777
Ann Surg. 2018 Dec;268(6):955-967
pubmed: 29746338
Dis Colon Rectum. 2016 Jul;59(7):623-9
pubmed: 27270514
Br J Surg. 2019 Oct;106(11):1530-1541
pubmed: 31436325
Dis Colon Rectum. 1999 Jul;42(7):881-5
pubmed: 10411434
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Mar;15(3):712-20
pubmed: 18163173
Lancet. 2017 Jul 29;390(10093):469-479
pubmed: 28601342
Colorectal Dis. 2008 Mar;10(3):231-8
pubmed: 18257848
Dis Colon Rectum. 2003 Mar;46(3):298-304
pubmed: 12626903
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 21;351(17):1731-40
pubmed: 15496622
Br J Surg. 2020 Sep;107(10):1372-1382
pubmed: 32297326
Colorectal Dis. 2005 Sep;7(5):472-9
pubmed: 16108884
Br J Surg. 2012 Jul;99(7):993-1001
pubmed: 22351592
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Feb;16(2):200-7
pubmed: 25589192
Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Mar;53(3):251-6
pubmed: 20173469
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 May;5(5):465-474
pubmed: 32043980
Hepatogastroenterology. 2005 Nov-Dec;52(66):1688-91
pubmed: 16334758
Dis Colon Rectum. 1997 Dec;40(12):1472-6
pubmed: 9407987
Histopathology. 2016 Nov;69(5):839-848
pubmed: 27270756
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Sep;11(9):835-44
pubmed: 20692872
Surgery. 2019 Oct;166(4):648-654
pubmed: 31378480
Lancet. 2018 Jun 23;391(10139):2537-2545
pubmed: 29976470
Br J Surg. 2019 Sep;106(10):1298-1310
pubmed: 31216064
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jul;2(7):501-513
pubmed: 28479372
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec 1;23(34):8688-96
pubmed: 16246976
Radiology. 2009 Jul;252(1):81-91
pubmed: 19403848
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Dec;4(12):1522-7
pubmed: 16979956
Hepatogastroenterology. 2004 Jul-Aug;51(58):998-1000
pubmed: 15239233
Br J Surg. 2018 Oct;105(11):1417-1425
pubmed: 30155949
Br J Surg. 2018 Oct;105(11):1501-1509
pubmed: 29663352
Colorectal Dis. 2008 Jul;10(6):563-8
pubmed: 18070184