Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Department of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
BMC Cancer. 2022 Oct 1;22(1):1031. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10125-1.
Both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and tumor regression grade (TRG) play key roles in evaluating tumor response. We analyzed the consistency of TRG and RECIST 1.1 for gastric cancer (GC) patients and compared their prognostic values.
Patients with GC who received preoperative chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy and had records of TRG from December 2013 to October 2021 were enrolled retrospectively. TRG 0-1 and 2-3 are considered as corresponding to complete response (CR)/partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD)/progress disease (PD) in RECIST 1.1, respectively. The primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The consistency of RECIST and TRG was examined by kappa statistics. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan Meier method.
One hundred fifty seven GC patients were enrolled, including 125 with preoperative chemotherapy and 32 with chemoimmunotherapy. Among them, 56 patients had measurable lesions. Only 19.6% (11/56) of the patients had consistent results between RECIST 1.1 and TRG. TRG was correlated with both OS and DFS (P = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively) while response according to RECIST1.1 was not (P = 0.86 and 0.23, respectively). The median DFS had not reached in the TRG 0-1 group and was 16.13 months in TRG 2-3 group. TRG 2-3 was associated with young age and peritoneal or liver metastasis. Besides, preoperative chemoimmunotherapy had a significantly higher pCR rate than chemotherapy alone (34.4% vs 8.0%, P < 0.001).
TRG was in poor agreement with RECIST 1.1. TRG was better than RECIST 1.1 in predicting DFS and OS for GC patients who received preoperative therapy.
实体瘤反应评价标准(RECIST)和肿瘤退缩分级(TRG)在评估肿瘤反应方面都起着关键作用。我们分析了胃癌(GC)患者中 TRG 与 RECIST 1.1 的一致性,并比较了它们的预后价值。
回顾性纳入 2013 年 12 月至 2021 年 10 月期间接受术前化疗或化疗免疫治疗且有 TRG 记录的 GC 患者。TRG 0-1 和 2-3 分别被认为与 RECIST 1.1 中的完全缓解(CR)/部分缓解(PR)和稳定疾病(SD)/进展疾病(PD)相对应。主要终点是无病生存(DFS)和总生存(OS)。采用 Kappa 统计检验评估 RECIST 和 TRG 的一致性。采用 Kaplan-Meier 法进行生存分析。
共纳入 157 例 GC 患者,其中 125 例接受术前化疗,32 例接受化疗免疫治疗。其中 56 例患者有可测量病变。只有 19.6%(11/56)的患者在 RECIST 1.1 和 TRG 之间有一致的结果。TRG 与 OS 和 DFS 均相关(P=0.02 和 0.03),而根据 RECIST1.1 的反应则没有(P=0.86 和 0.23)。TRG 0-1 组的中位 DFS 尚未达到,而 TRG 2-3 组为 16.13 个月。TRG 2-3 与年龄较轻、腹膜或肝转移有关。此外,术前化疗免疫治疗的完全病理缓解率明显高于单纯化疗(34.4% vs 8.0%,P<0.001)。
TRG 与 RECIST 1.1 一致性差。TRG 优于 RECIST 1.1,可预测接受术前治疗的 GC 患者的 DFS 和 OS。