TY - JOUR
T1 - Tumor regression grade in gastric cancer
T2 - Predictors and impact on outcome
AU - Blackham, Aaron U.
AU - Greenleaf, Erin
AU - Yamamoto, Maki
AU - Hollenbeak, Chris
AU - Gusani, Niraj
AU - Coppola, Domenico
AU - Pimiento, Jose M.
AU - Wong, Joyce
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PY - 2016/9/15
Y1 - 2016/9/15
N2 - Background: The clinical value and prognostic implications of histologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer is unknown. Methods: Tumor regression grade (TRG) was recorded in 58 gastric cancer patients identified from two institutional surgical databases. TRG 1a/b represented histologic responders (<10% viable tumor), while TRG 2/3 represented non-responders (>10% viable tumor). Results: TRG 1a/b was recorded in 10 patients (17%), while 48 patients (83%) had a TRG 2/3 response. Larger tumor size (OR 0.24; 95%CI 0.09, 0.64; P=0.004) and clinical downstaging (OR 30.0; 95%CI 3.26, 276; P=0.003) were the only factors predictive of histologic response. TRG 1a/b responders had 3-year survival of 70.0% and an estimated overall survival of>69.8 months compared to 38.2% and 22.8 months in non-responders; however, this trend was not statistically significant (P=0.535). While TRG could not predict survival (OR 2.40; 95%CI 0.46, 12.57; P=0.300), patient age (OR 1.06; 95%CI 1.00, 1.11; P=0.035), and the number of positive lymph nodes (≥7; OR 0.05; 95%CI 0.07, 0.27; P<0.001) were independent predictors of survival. Conclusions: Few gastric cancers demonstrate histologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. While TRG may be a valid marker for treatment response, its predictive value and clinical application in gastric cancer remains unclear.
AB - Background: The clinical value and prognostic implications of histologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer is unknown. Methods: Tumor regression grade (TRG) was recorded in 58 gastric cancer patients identified from two institutional surgical databases. TRG 1a/b represented histologic responders (<10% viable tumor), while TRG 2/3 represented non-responders (>10% viable tumor). Results: TRG 1a/b was recorded in 10 patients (17%), while 48 patients (83%) had a TRG 2/3 response. Larger tumor size (OR 0.24; 95%CI 0.09, 0.64; P=0.004) and clinical downstaging (OR 30.0; 95%CI 3.26, 276; P=0.003) were the only factors predictive of histologic response. TRG 1a/b responders had 3-year survival of 70.0% and an estimated overall survival of>69.8 months compared to 38.2% and 22.8 months in non-responders; however, this trend was not statistically significant (P=0.535). While TRG could not predict survival (OR 2.40; 95%CI 0.46, 12.57; P=0.300), patient age (OR 1.06; 95%CI 1.00, 1.11; P=0.035), and the number of positive lymph nodes (≥7; OR 0.05; 95%CI 0.07, 0.27; P<0.001) were independent predictors of survival. Conclusions: Few gastric cancers demonstrate histologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. While TRG may be a valid marker for treatment response, its predictive value and clinical application in gastric cancer remains unclear.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027922910&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027922910&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jso.24307
DO - 10.1002/jso.24307
M3 - Article
C2 - 27199217
AN - SCOPUS:85027922910
SN - 0022-4790
VL - 114
SP - 434
EP - 439
JO - Journal of Surgical Oncology
JF - Journal of Surgical Oncology
IS - 4
ER -