Pathological regression of primary tumour and metastatic lymph nodes following chemotherapy in resectable OG cancer: pooled analysis of two trials.
Journal
British journal of cancer
ISSN: 1532-1827
Titre abrégé: Br J Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0370635
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
received:
26
07
2022
accepted:
23
02
2023
revised:
12
12
2022
medline:
25
5
2023
pubmed:
26
3
2023
entrez:
25
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
No definitive largescale data exist evaluating the role of pathologically defined regression changes within the primary tumour and lymph nodes (LN) of resected oesophagogastric (OG) adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the impact on survival. Data and samples from two large prospective randomised trials (UK MRC OE05 and ST03) were pooled. Stained slides were available for central pathology review from 1619 patients. Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG) and regression of tumour within LNs (LNR: scored as present/absent) were assessed and correlated with overall survival (OS) using a Cox regression model. An exploratory analysis to define subgroups with distinct prognoses was conducted using a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. Neither trial demonstrated a relationship between TRG score and the presence or absence of LNR. In univariable analysis, lower TRG, lower ypN stage, lower ypT stage, presence of LNR, presence of well/moderate tumour differentiation, and absence of tumour at resection margin were all associated with better OS. However, the multivariable analysis demonstrated that only ypN, ypT, grade of differentiation and resection margin (R0) were independent indicators of prognosis. Exploratory CART analysis identified six subgroups with 3-year OS ranging from 83% to 22%; with ypN stage being the most important single prognostic variable. Pathological LN stage within the resection specimen was the single most important determiner of survival. Our results suggest that the assessment of regression changes within the primary tumour or LNs may not be necessary to define the prognosis further.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
No definitive largescale data exist evaluating the role of pathologically defined regression changes within the primary tumour and lymph nodes (LN) of resected oesophagogastric (OG) adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the impact on survival.
METHODS
Data and samples from two large prospective randomised trials (UK MRC OE05 and ST03) were pooled. Stained slides were available for central pathology review from 1619 patients. Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG) and regression of tumour within LNs (LNR: scored as present/absent) were assessed and correlated with overall survival (OS) using a Cox regression model. An exploratory analysis to define subgroups with distinct prognoses was conducted using a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis.
RESULTS
Neither trial demonstrated a relationship between TRG score and the presence or absence of LNR. In univariable analysis, lower TRG, lower ypN stage, lower ypT stage, presence of LNR, presence of well/moderate tumour differentiation, and absence of tumour at resection margin were all associated with better OS. However, the multivariable analysis demonstrated that only ypN, ypT, grade of differentiation and resection margin (R0) were independent indicators of prognosis. Exploratory CART analysis identified six subgroups with 3-year OS ranging from 83% to 22%; with ypN stage being the most important single prognostic variable.
CONCLUSIONS
Pathological LN stage within the resection specimen was the single most important determiner of survival. Our results suggest that the assessment of regression changes within the primary tumour or LNs may not be necessary to define the prognosis further.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36966233
doi: 10.1038/s41416-023-02217-x
pii: 10.1038/s41416-023-02217-x
pmc: PMC10206103
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2036-2043Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Sci Immunol. 2021 Sep 10;6(63):eabg3551
pubmed: 34516744
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):357-370
pubmed: 28163000
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct 20;27(30):5062-7
pubmed: 19770374
Br J Surg. 2017 Dec;104(13):1816-1828
pubmed: 28944954
Sci Transl Med. 2020 Sep 30;12(563):
pubmed: 32998971
Br J Cancer. 2016 Sep 6;115(6):655-63
pubmed: 27537382
Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Dec;92(6):2020-7
pubmed: 22115212
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 10;34(23):2721-7
pubmed: 27298411
Hum Pathol. 2019 Feb;84:26-34
pubmed: 30217622
Cell. 2022 May 26;185(11):1924-1942.e23
pubmed: 35525247
J Pathol Clin Res. 2020 Oct;6(4):263-272
pubmed: 32401432
Br J Surg. 2018 Nov;105(12):1639-1649
pubmed: 30047556
N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 1;384(13):1191-1203
pubmed: 33789008
Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Jan;99(1):277-83
pubmed: 25442991
Histopathology. 2009 Oct;55(4):399-406
pubmed: 19817890
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 6;355(1):11-20
pubmed: 16822992
J Surg Oncol. 2020 Apr;121(5):795-803
pubmed: 31773740
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep;18(9):1249-1260
pubmed: 28784312
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Summer;28(2):549-558
pubmed: 28043475
Histopathology. 2018 Jun;72(7):1180-1188
pubmed: 29465751
Ann Surg. 2023 Feb 1;277(2):e320-e331
pubmed: 34520429
Ann Surg. 1907 Jul;46(1):1-19
pubmed: 17861990
Front Immunol. 2021 Mar 01;12:643291
pubmed: 33732264
World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019 Jan 15;11(1):48-58
pubmed: 30984350
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Jul 8;67(4):304-317
pubmed: 28556024
Cancer. 1994 Jun 1;73(11):2680-6
pubmed: 8194005
Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1948-1957
pubmed: 30982686
JCI Insight. 2018 Dec 6;3(23):
pubmed: 30518694
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022 May;48(5):1001-1010
pubmed: 34974947