Jin Y, Zhai Z W, Sun L T, Xia P D, Hu H, Jiang C Q, Zhao B C, Qu H, Qian Q, Dai Y, Yao H W, Wang Z J, Han J G
Department of General Surgery, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100020, China.
Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.
Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2024 Apr 25;27(4):403-411. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20240101-00002.
To investigate the value of transanal multipoint full-layer puncture biopsy (TMFP) in predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy (nCRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and to establish a predictive model for providing clinical guidance regarding the treatment of LARC. In this multicenter, prospective, cohort study, we collected data on 110 LARC patients from four hospitals between April 2020 and March 2023: Beijing Chaoyang Hospital of Capital Medical University (50 patients), Beijing Friendship Hospital of Capital Medical University (41 patients), Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (16 patients), and Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (three patients). The patients had all received TMFP after completing standard nCRT. The variables studied included (1) clinicopathological characteristics; (2) clinical complete remission (cCR) and efficacy of TMFP in determining pCR after NCRT in LARC patients; and (3) hospital attended, sex, age, clinical T- and N-stages, distance between the lower margin of the tumor and the anal verge, baseline and post-radiotherapy serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9 concentrations, chemotherapy regimen, use of immunosuppressants with or without radiotherapy, radiation therapy dosage, interval between surgery and radiotherapy, surgical procedure, clinical T/N stage after radiotherapy, cCR, pathological results of TMFP, puncture method (endoscopic or percutaneous), and number and timing of punctures. Single-factor and multifactorial logistic regression analysis were used to determine the factors affecting pCR after NCRT in LARC patients. A prediction model was constructed based on the results of multivariat analysis and the performance of this model evaluated by analyzing subject work characteristics (ROC), calibration, and clinical decision-making (DCA) curves. pCR was defined as complete absence of tumor cells on microscopic examination of the surgical specimens of rectal cancer (including lymph node dissection) after NCRT, that is, ypT0+N0. cCR was defined according to the Chinese Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Waiting Watch Database Study Collaborative Group criteria after treatment, which specify an absence of ulceration and nodules on endoscopy; negative rectal palpation; no tumor signals on rectal MRI T2 and DWI sequences; normal serum CEA concentrations, and no evidence of recurrence on pelvic computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. Of the 110 patients, 45 (40.9%) achieved pCR after nCRT, which was combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in 34 (30.9%). cCR was diagnosed before puncture in 38 (34.5%) patients, 43 (39.1%) of the punctures being endoscopic. There were no complications of puncture such as enterocutaneous fistulae, vaginal injury, prostatic injury, or presacral bleeding . Only one (2.3%) patient had a small amount of blood in the stools, which was relieved by anal pressure. cCR had a sensitivity of 57.8% (26/45) for determining pCR, specificity of 81.5% (53/65), accuracy of 71.8% (79/110), positive predictive value 68.4% (26/38), and negative predictive value of 73.6% (53/72). In contrast, the sensitivity of TMFP pathology in determining pCR was 100% (45/45), specificity 66.2% (43/65), accuracy 80.0% (88/110), positive predictive value 67.2% (45/67), and negative predictive value 100.0% (43/43). In this study, the sensitivity of TMFP for pCR (100.0% vs. 57.8%, χ=24.09, <0.001) was significantly higher than that for cCR. However, the accuracy of pCR did not differ significantly (80.0% vs. 71.8%, χ=2.01, =0.156). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that a ≥4 cm distance between the lower edge of the tumor and the anal verge (OR=7.84, 95%CI: 1.48-41.45, =0.015), non-cCR (OR=4.81, 95%CI: 1.39-16.69, =0.013), and pathological diagnosis by TMFP (OR=114.29, the 95%CI: 11.07-1180.28, <0.001) were risk factors for pCR after NCRT in LARC patients. Additionally, endoscopic puncture (OR=0.02, 95%CI: 0.05-0.77, =0.020) was a protective factor for pCR after NCRT in LARC patients. The area under the ROC curve of the established prediction model was 0.934 (95%CI: 0.892-0.977), suggesting that the model has good discrimination. The calibration curve was relatively close to the ideal 45° reference line, indicating that the predicted values of the model were in good agreement with the actual values. A decision-making curve showed that the model had a good net clinical benefit. Our predictive model, which incorporates TMFP, has considerable accuracy in predicting pCR after nCRT in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. This may provide a basis for more precisely selecting individualized therapy.
探讨经肛门多点全层穿刺活检(TMFP)在预测局部晚期直肠癌(LARC)患者新辅助放化疗(nCRT)后病理完全缓解(pCR)中的价值,并建立预测模型,为LARC的治疗提供临床指导。在这项多中心、前瞻性队列研究中,我们收集了2020年4月至2023年3月期间来自四家医院的110例LARC患者的数据:首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院(50例)、首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院(41例)、山东大学齐鲁医院(16例)和武汉大学中南医院(3例)。所有患者在完成标准nCRT后均接受了TMFP。研究的变量包括:(1)临床病理特征;(2)临床完全缓解(cCR)以及TMFP在确定LARC患者NCRT后pCR中的有效性;(3)就诊医院、性别、年龄、临床T和N分期、肿瘤下缘与肛缘的距离、放疗前后血清癌胚抗原(CEA)和糖类抗原(CA)19-9浓度、化疗方案、放疗时有无使用免疫抑制剂、放疗剂量、手术与放疗的间隔时间、手术方式、放疗后临床T/N分期、cCR、TMFP的病理结果、穿刺方法(内镜或经皮)以及穿刺次数和时间。采用单因素和多因素逻辑回归分析确定影响LARC患者NCRT后pCR的因素。基于多变量分析结果构建预测模型,并通过分析受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线、校准曲线和临床决策(DCA)曲线评估该模型的性能。pCR定义为NCRT后直肠癌手术标本(包括淋巴结清扫)显微镜检查未见肿瘤细胞,即ypT0+N0。cCR根据中国新辅助直肠癌等待观察数据库研究协作组的标准定义,具体为内镜检查无溃疡和结节;直肠指检阴性;直肠MRI T2和DWI序列无肿瘤信号;血清CEA浓度正常,盆腔计算机断层扫描/磁共振成像无复发证据。110例患者中,45例(40.9%)在nCRT后达到pCR,其中34例(30.9%)联合使用了免疫检查点抑制剂。38例(34.5%)患者在穿刺前被诊断为cCR,43次(39.1%)穿刺为内镜穿刺。未发生肠皮肤瘘、阴道损伤、前列腺损伤或骶前出血等穿刺并发症。仅1例(2.3%)患者出现少量便血,经肛门压迫后缓解。cCR对pCR的诊断敏感性为57.8%(26/45),特异性为81.5%(53/65),准确性为71.8%(79/110),阳性预测值为68.4%(26/38),阴性预测值为73.6%(53/72)。相比之下,TMFP病理对pCR的诊断敏感性为100%(45/45),特异性为66.2%(43/65),准确性为80.0%(88/110),阳性预测值为67.2%(45/67),阴性预测值为100.0%(43/43)。在本研究中,TMFP对pCR的敏感性(100.0%对57.8%,χ=24.09,<0.001)显著高于对cCR的敏感性。然而,pCR的准确性差异无统计学意义(80.0%对71.8%,χ=2.01,=0.156)。单因素和多因素逻辑回归分析显示,肿瘤下缘与肛缘距离≥4 cm(OR=7.84,95%CI:1.48-41.45,=0.015)、非cCR(OR=4.81,95%CI:1.39-16.69,=0.013)以及TMFP病理诊断(OR=114.29,95%CI:11.07-1180.28,<0.001)是LARC患者NCRT后pCR的危险因素。此外,内镜穿刺(OR=0.02,95%CI:0.05-0.77,=0.020)是LARC患者NCRT后pCR的保护因素。所建立预测模型的ROC曲线下面积为0.934(95%CI:0.892-0.977),表明该模型具有良好的区分度。校准曲线相对接近理想的45°参考线,表明模型的预测值与实际值吻合良好。决策曲线显示该模型具有良好的净临床效益。我们纳入TMFP的预测模型在预测局部晚期直肠癌患者nCRT后的pCR方面具有相当高 的准确性。这可能为更精确地选择个体化治疗提供依据。