ObjectiveTo analyze the relation between the age of patients with colorectal cancer and neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) regimen decision-making and outcomes in the current version of the Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA). MethodsThe version of DACCA selected for this analysis was updated on January 5, 2022. The patients were enrolled according to the established screening criteria and then assigned to 3 age groups: ≤45, 45–65, and ≥65 years old groups. The differences in the NAT regimen decision-making and changes of symptom, imaging, and cancer markers in these 3 age groups were analyzed. ResultsA total of 4 882 data that met the screened criteria were enrolled. The results of statistical analysis showed that the difference in the constituent ratio of patients chosen NAT strategies among 3 age groups was not statistically significant (χ2=8.885, P=0.180). There was a statistical difference in the constituent ratio of patients chosen combined target drug among 3 age groups (χ2=8.530, P=0.014), it was found that the proportion of the patients with ≤45 years old adopting combined target drug regimen was higher. Although the changes of symptom (H=12.299, P=0.056), image (H=1.775, P=0.412), and cancer markers (H=11.351, P=0.183) had no statistical differences of the 3 age groups after NAT, it was found that the proportions of patients with ≥65 years old with progresses of symptom and imaging changes and elevated cancer markers after NAT were higher, and the proportions of patients with ≤45 years old with complete and partial remissions of symptom and imaging changes and with normal cancer markers after NAT were higher. ConclusionsThrough analysis of DACCA data, it is found that in the selection of NAT strategy for colorectal cancer, the lower age group, the higher proportion of patients adopting combined target drug regimen. Although it is not found that age is related to changes of symptoms, imaging, and cancer markers after NAT, it still shows a trend of better outcomes in younger patients.
The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with surgery, but patients after the same treatment regimen show a large difference in outcomes. For patients with good response to neoadjuvant therapy, the waiting & observation scheme can be selected to avoid surgery and other complications. Therefore, accurate assessment of the response of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy can better develop personalized treatment strategies. Current studies have found that blood sample detection, endoscopy, imaging examination and artificial intelligence have their own advantages and disadvantages in evaluating the response of neoadjuvant therapy. Therefore, this article reviews the application of different clinical tools in evaluating and predicting the response of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer, and looks forward to the future development direction.
Surgery remains as the primary definitive therapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) currently. However, quite a few NSCLC patients, especially in the later stage, suffered tumor recurrence after resection. Safer and more effective perioperative treatment is urgently needed to reduce the recurrence risk after NSCLC surgery. Immune checkpoint inhibitors can effectively prevent tumor immune evasion and have been shown to be a feasible, safe and effective neoadjuvant therapy for resectable NSCLC. Nevertheless, certain crucial problems, including the final effect on NSCLC recurrence, the selection of beneficial group and optimal treatment protocol are yet unsolved. Fortunately, several phase Ⅲ randomized controlled trials are ongoing to answer these questions and will hopefully provide stronger evidence.
Objective To explore the clinical value, latest research progress, and clinical controversy of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Method We searched and reviewed on the latest literatures about studies of the clinical research of TNT in LARC. Results TNT could make the tumor downstage rapidly and improve the patients’ treatment compliance. In terms of organ preservation rate, 3-year disease-free survival and pathological complete remission rate, TNT had advantages and was a especial potential treatment strategy compared with traditional methods. Conclusions TNT decreases local recurrence rate and improves the long-term survival. For LARC patients with strong desire for organ preservation, TNT is a good treatment choice and has the value of clinical promotion.
ObjectiveTo analyze the neoadjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer in this center in the background of real world data by studying Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA) in West China Hospital of Sichuan University.MethodsData was selected from DACCA who was updated on August 15, 2019. After deleting duplicate value, patients whose tumor location and tumor pathologic characteristic showed colon or rectum, as well as adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, and signet ring cell carcinoma were enrolled.ResultsThere were 2 783, 2 789, 2 790, 2 811, 4 148,3 824, 4 191, 3 676, 4 090, and 499 valid data of T, N, and M stages, clinical stages, tumor site, distance from tumor to anal dentate line, tumor pathologic characteristics, degree of tumor differentiation, neoadjuvant therapy, and compliance, respectively. There were 1 839 lines that " nature of the tumor pathology” was not empty and neoadjuvant scheme for the pure chemotherapy, radiotherapy alone or radiation, and chemotherapy, including 50 lines of signet ring cell carcinoma (2.7%), 299 lines of mucous adenocarcinoma (16.3%), 1 490 lines of adenocarcinoma (81.0%), various kinds of pathology in selection of neoadjuvant therapy difference was statistically significant (χ2=9.138, P=0.041). Except for the data lines with null value in the column of " operation date”, there were 2 234 (82.1%) and 486 (17.9%) effective data lines of " recommended” and " not recommended” for the use of neoadjuvant therapy, respectively. In the years with a large amount of data, among the patients who completed neoadjuvant therapy, the proportion of patients meeting the recommended indications was 27.4%–67.6%, with an average of 47.4%. Patients who did not meet the recommended indications but were recommended (off-label use) accounted for 7.3%–70.0%, with an average of 39.8%. According to regression analysis, the proportion in line with the recommendation (\begin{document}$\hat y $\end{document}=–0.032 5x+66.003 2, P=0.020) varies with the year, and the overall trend shows a gradual decline. The proportion of the use of super indications (\begin{document}$\hat y $\end{document}=–0.054 5x+110.174 6, P=0.002) changed with the year, and the overall trend showed a decline. A total of 1 161 valid data with non-null values of " eoadjuvant therapy regimen” and " recommended or not recommended” showed statistically significant difference in the use rate of neoadjuvant therapy among patients with different recommendation groups (χ2=9.244, P=0.002). " Patient compliance” was shown as " active cooperation” and " passive acceptance”, and " neoadjuvant therapy” was shown as " radiotherapy alone”" chemotherapy alone”, and " chemoradiotherapy” were 470 lines. There was no statistically significant difference in neoadjuvant therapy between patients receiving active and passive treatment (χ2=0.537, P=0.841). The effective data of clinical remission degree meeting the research conditions were 388 lines, including 121 lines of complete response (31.2%), 180 lines of partial response (46.4%), 79 lines of stable disease (20.4%), and 8 lines of progressive disease (2.1%). There was no statistically significant difference in clinical response degree among patients with different neoadjuvant therapy (H=0.435, P=0.783). There were 346 lines with effective data of pathologic tumor regression grade (TRG) meeting the study conditions, including 47 lines with TRG0 (13.6%), 39 lines with TRG1 (11.3%), 180 lines with TRG2 (52.0%), and 80 lines with TRG3 (23.1%). There was no statistical difference in the degree of TRG among patients with different neoadjuvant therapy (H=1.816, P=0.518).ConclusionsThe real world study reflects that in the western regional medical center, the demand for neoadjuvant therapy among the patients with colorectal cancer covered is huge. Although the implementation of neoadjuvant therapy is greatly influenced by the doctor’s recommendation behavior, the selection and recommendation of neoadjuvant therapy according to some specific clinical application guidelines are not fully met. The impact of more behavioral factors requires further in-depth analysis and research.
China is a country with a high incidence of esophageal cancer. Most patients are already in the locally advanced stage when first diagnosed. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery has become the standard treatment mode for them. Closely related to prognosis, the evaluation of tumor response is essential. Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors is the gold standard to evaluate tumor response, but the lesions must meet the measurement standards. Tumor regression grading (TRG) systems are designed to classify regressive changes after neoadjuvant treatment based on histopathological results to reveal prognostic information. Concentrating on pathologic assessment of esophageal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy, this article reviews histopathological changes, commonly used TRG systems and current debate.
ObjectiveTo investigate whether adjuvant therapy can bring survival benefits to patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who have received neoadjuvant therapy plus esophagectomy. MethodsStudies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and CNKI from inception to November 2022 to collect studies which conformed to the objective of this study. Clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were extracted from eligible studies after screening. RevMan 5.4 and Stata 14.0 were used to perform the meta-analysis. ResultsA total of 9 studies were selected including 1 340 patients. Compared with the neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery (NS) group, the neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery+adjuvant therapy (NS+A) group had no significant benefit in the OS [HR=0.88, 95%CI (0.75, 1.02), P=0.09], but had remarkable benefit in the RFS [HR=0.75, 95%CI (0.58, 0.97), P=0.03]. Subgroup analysis by nodal status showed that adjuvant therapy could improve the RFS of patients with node-positive disease. Prolonged OS was observed in the patients with both positive and negative nodes but not in the patients with only positive nodes. In terms of the subgroup analysis by prescription, it revealed that triple agents exhibited advantages in improving RFS but not OS. However, dual agents did not bring additional survival benefits to the NS+A group compared with the NS group. Subgroup analysis by adjuvant therapy indicated that neither postoperative chemoradiotherapy nor chemotherapy improved OS, whereas postoperative chemoradiation elongated RFS. ConclusionAdjuvant therapy can improve the prognosis of patients with ESCC after neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy.
ObjectiveTo analyze the relationship between occupational type of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and decision-making and curative effect of neoadjuvant therapy in the current version of the Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA). MethodsThe eligible CRC patients were collected from June 29, 2022 updated DACCA according to the screening criteria, in which the data items analyzed included: gender, age, BMI, blood type, marriage, occupation, neoadjuvant therapy, symptomatic changes, imaging changes, and tumor regression grade (TRG), and the occupations were classified into the mental labour group, physical labour group, and the unemployed and resident groups according to the type of labour, then compared the decision-making and curative effect of neoadjuvant therapy among the 3 groups. ResultsA total of 2 415 eligible data were screened, of which 1 160 (48.0%) were the most in the manual labour group, followed by 877 (36.3%) in the unemployed and resident group, and finally 378 (15.7%) in the mental labour group. The proportion of those who did not use targeted drugs was higher in both patients ≤60 years old and >60 years old [75.6% (958/1 267) vs. 82.5% (947/1 148)], with both differences being statistically significant (P=0.004 and P=0.019), and among patients >60 years old, the different occupational types were associated with symptomatic changes and imaging changes after neoadjuvant therapy, with the highest number of both changes to partial remission [71.5% (161/225) vs. 66.7% (148/222)], both differences being statistically significant (P=0.001 and P=0.017). ConclusionThe analysis results of DACCA data reveal that the occupational type of CRC patients was associated with the choice of neoadjuvant therapy, and that different occupational types were associated with changes in curative effect before and after neoadjuvant therapy in CRC patients >60 years old, which needs to be further analysis for the reasons.
ObjectiveTo evaluate prognostic value of change of immune status in locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) patients. Methods We retrospective collected 210 LAGC patients who underwent treatment in our department from January 2013 to December 2018, then we collected lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) and cLMR (change of lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, cLMR) before operation and after three cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. We had developed a new immune state change score (ICS) based on preoperative LMR (pLMR) and cLMR, and explored its prognostic value. The definition of ICS in this study was: ICS=1, pLMR≤4.53 and cLMR≤1; ICS=2, pLMR≤4.53 and cLMR>1, or pLMR>4.53 and cLMR≤1; ICS=3, pLMR>4.53 and cLMR>1. Results The results of multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression model showed that ICS was an influencing factor for overall survival [ICS=2, RR=0.397, 95%CI (0.260, 0.608), P<0.001; ICS=3, RR=0.080, 95%CI (0.040, 0.162), P<0.001), patients with ICS scores of 2 and 3 had better overall survival. In addition, the prognostic accuracy of ICS was superior to pLMR and Clmr, and the C-index of ICS [0.806, 95%CI (0.746, 0.865)] was higher than that of pLMR [0.717, 95%CI (0.635, 0.799), P=0.003)] and cLMR [0.723, 95%CI (0.641, 0.806), P=0.005)]. Based on this, a Nomogram model included ICS, CEA, and pTNM staging was constructed to predict the 3-year and 5-year survival rates of patients. The calibration curve and C-index [0.821, 95%CI (0.783, 0.859)] showed high discrimination and accuracy of Nomogram, and decision curve analysis confirmed that the model had good clinical application value. Conclusions The dynamic changes in the patient’s immune status before and after adjuvant therapy are related to the overall survival of LAGC patients. As an evaluating system which combined the cLMR and pLMR, ICS can better predict the prognosis of LAGC patients.