International journal of colorectal disease · 2022
Optimized tools and timing of response reassessment after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in rectal cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Junbing, Wu Zhouqiao, Zhang Xiaoyan, Liu Zining, Wang Yiding, Shan Fei, Wang Yinkui, Xia Shaojun, Zhang Yan, Sun Yingshi, Ji Jiafu, Li Ziyu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Reassessment tools of response to long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment (nCRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) are important in predicting complete response (CR) and thus deciding whether a wait-and-watch strategy can be implemented in these patients. Choosing which routine reassessment tools are optimal and when to use them is still unclear and will be researched in the study.
METHODS: Altogether, 250 patients with LARC who received nCRT from 2013 to 2021 and were followed up were retrospectively reviewed. Common reassessment tools of response included digital rectal examination (DRE), clinical examination and symptoms, endoscopy, biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and blood biomarkers.
RESULTS: Overall, 27.20% (68/250) patients had a complete response and 72.80% (182/250) did not. The combination of MRI, endoscopy, and biopsy showed the best performance in terms of accuracy of 74% and area under the curve (AUC, 0.714, 95% CI 0.546-0.882). Reassessing through DRE and presence of symptoms failed to improve the efficacy of response reassessment. After 100 days, biopsy as an assessment tool would obtain a substantial rise in accuracy from 51.28 to 100% (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: The combination of MRI, endoscopy, and biopsy is suitable as the reassessment tool of response for applying a wait-and-watch strategy after long-course nCRT in patients with LARC. The accuracy of biopsy as reassessment tools would be improved if they were used over 100 days after nCRT in patients with rectal cancer.
METHODS: Altogether, 250 patients with LARC who received nCRT from 2013 to 2021 and were followed up were retrospectively reviewed. Common reassessment tools of response included digital rectal examination (DRE), clinical examination and symptoms, endoscopy, biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and blood biomarkers.
RESULTS: Overall, 27.20% (68/250) patients had a complete response and 72.80% (182/250) did not. The combination of MRI, endoscopy, and biopsy showed the best performance in terms of accuracy of 74% and area under the curve (AUC, 0.714, 95% CI 0.546-0.882). Reassessing through DRE and presence of symptoms failed to improve the efficacy of response reassessment. After 100 days, biopsy as an assessment tool would obtain a substantial rise in accuracy from 51.28 to 100% (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: The combination of MRI, endoscopy, and biopsy is suitable as the reassessment tool of response for applying a wait-and-watch strategy after long-course nCRT in patients with LARC. The accuracy of biopsy as reassessment tools would be improved if they were used over 100 days after nCRT in patients with rectal cancer.