A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Instrumental clinical restaging, pathological evaluation, and tumor regression grading: how to assess the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. | LitMetric

Introduction: The object of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens is a downstaging or downsizing of advanced rectal tumor to increase the rate of curative resection and reduce loco-regional failure. A reliable method of assessing response to adjuvant therapies is required to help standardize the assessments of new multimodality therapies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role played by tumor regression grading on the evaluation of pathological response to chemoradiotherapy, compared with both the predicting value of the clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy and pathologic response evaluation.

Methods: From 1994 to 2003, 58 patients with a primary diagnosis of rectal cancer were studied at our department and enrolled in a single center, not randomized study based on 5-week sessions of radiotherapy associated with a 30-day 5-fluorouracil (FU) infusion, followed by surgical resection. Instrumental restaging and routine histological examination, including tumor regression grading, were performed to asses the response to neoadjuvant therapy.

Results: The cCR rate corresponds to pCR rate, while a 3.5% of cPR and a 3.4% of cSD corresponded to a pPD. cPR and cSD show a PPV of 92.8% and 90.9% respectively, while cPD NPV is 20%. No case was found with no regression (grade 0). Tumor regression was defined grade 1 in 24.5% of cases, grade 2 was found in 58.5% of cases, 7.5% were grade 3, and 9.5% showed complete regression (grade 4). Pathologic response resulted to be associated with regression grade (p=0.006). Tumor regression grading is an independent variable for pT (p=0.0002), pN status (p=0.00004), pathologic staging (p=0.000001) and local recurrence (p=0.003).

Conclusion: Our results lead us to consider only pathologic evaluation to determine the response to neoadjuvant treatment: the application of tumor regression grading on the specimens obtained after combined neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery is useful to plan a better therapeutic strategy on the ground of a quantitative evaluation of the response to neoadjuvant treatment; it shows it is an important comparable pathological feature, useful in comparing different protocols' results and differences between patient's response as well as prognostic factors.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-006-0092-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

tumor regression
24
regression grading
20
response neoadjuvant
20
neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
12
regression grade
12
response
10
regression
9
rectal cancer
8
pathologic response
8
neoadjuvant treatment
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!