A comparative study of volumetric analysis, histopathologic downstaging, and tumor regression grade in evaluating tumor response in locally advanced rectal cancer following preoperative chemoradiation

Namkyu Kim, Seung Hyuk Baik, Byung Soh Min, Hong Ryull Pyo, Yun Jung Choi, Hogeun Kim, Jinsil Seong, Ki Chang Keum, SunYoung Rha, Hyuncheol Chung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

56 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare tumor volume reduction rate, histopathologic downstaging, and tumor regression grade (TRG) among tumor responses in rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients and Methods: Between 2002 and 2004, 30 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer underwent preoperative CRT, followed by surgical resection. Magnetic resonance volumetry was performed before and after CRT. Histopathologic tumor staging and tumor regression were reviewed. We compared pre- and post-CRT tumor volume and percent of volume reduction, according to histopathologic downstaging and TRG. Results: The tumor volume reduction rates ranged from 14.6% to 100%. Mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volumes were significantly smaller in patients who showed T downstaging than in those who did not (p = 0.040, 0.014). The mean tumor volume reduction was 66.4% vs. 55.2% (p = 0.361). However, the mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volume and mean tumor volume reduction rate between patients who showed N downstaging and those who did not were not statistically different (p = 0.176, 0.767, and 0.899). With respect to TRG, the mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volumes were not statistically significant (p = 0.108, 0.708, and 0.120). Conclusion: Tumor volume reduction rate does not correlate with histopathologic downstaging and TRG. It might be hazardous to evaluate tumor response with respect to volume reduction and to select the surgical method on this basis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)204-210
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume67
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007 Jan 1

Fingerprint

volumetric analysis
Rectal Neoplasms
Tumor Burden
grade
Chemoradiotherapy
tumors
cancer
Neoplasms
Neoplasm Staging
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiation
  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

@article{3fd328a8b8e84c30bba27e7a18961957,
title = "A comparative study of volumetric analysis, histopathologic downstaging, and tumor regression grade in evaluating tumor response in locally advanced rectal cancer following preoperative chemoradiation",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare tumor volume reduction rate, histopathologic downstaging, and tumor regression grade (TRG) among tumor responses in rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients and Methods: Between 2002 and 2004, 30 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer underwent preoperative CRT, followed by surgical resection. Magnetic resonance volumetry was performed before and after CRT. Histopathologic tumor staging and tumor regression were reviewed. We compared pre- and post-CRT tumor volume and percent of volume reduction, according to histopathologic downstaging and TRG. Results: The tumor volume reduction rates ranged from 14.6{\%} to 100{\%}. Mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volumes were significantly smaller in patients who showed T downstaging than in those who did not (p = 0.040, 0.014). The mean tumor volume reduction was 66.4{\%} vs. 55.2{\%} (p = 0.361). However, the mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volume and mean tumor volume reduction rate between patients who showed N downstaging and those who did not were not statistically different (p = 0.176, 0.767, and 0.899). With respect to TRG, the mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volumes were not statistically significant (p = 0.108, 0.708, and 0.120). Conclusion: Tumor volume reduction rate does not correlate with histopathologic downstaging and TRG. It might be hazardous to evaluate tumor response with respect to volume reduction and to select the surgical method on this basis.",
author = "Namkyu Kim and Baik, {Seung Hyuk} and Min, {Byung Soh} and Pyo, {Hong Ryull} and Choi, {Yun Jung} and Hogeun Kim and Jinsil Seong and Keum, {Ki Chang} and SunYoung Rha and Hyuncheol Chung",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.08.020",
language = "English",
volume = "67",
pages = "204--210",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics",
issn = "0360-3016",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative study of volumetric analysis, histopathologic downstaging, and tumor regression grade in evaluating tumor response in locally advanced rectal cancer following preoperative chemoradiation

AU - Kim, Namkyu

AU - Baik, Seung Hyuk

AU - Min, Byung Soh

AU - Pyo, Hong Ryull

AU - Choi, Yun Jung

AU - Kim, Hogeun

AU - Seong, Jinsil

AU - Keum, Ki Chang

AU - Rha, SunYoung

AU - Chung, Hyuncheol

PY - 2007/1/1

Y1 - 2007/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare tumor volume reduction rate, histopathologic downstaging, and tumor regression grade (TRG) among tumor responses in rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients and Methods: Between 2002 and 2004, 30 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer underwent preoperative CRT, followed by surgical resection. Magnetic resonance volumetry was performed before and after CRT. Histopathologic tumor staging and tumor regression were reviewed. We compared pre- and post-CRT tumor volume and percent of volume reduction, according to histopathologic downstaging and TRG. Results: The tumor volume reduction rates ranged from 14.6% to 100%. Mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volumes were significantly smaller in patients who showed T downstaging than in those who did not (p = 0.040, 0.014). The mean tumor volume reduction was 66.4% vs. 55.2% (p = 0.361). However, the mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volume and mean tumor volume reduction rate between patients who showed N downstaging and those who did not were not statistically different (p = 0.176, 0.767, and 0.899). With respect to TRG, the mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volumes were not statistically significant (p = 0.108, 0.708, and 0.120). Conclusion: Tumor volume reduction rate does not correlate with histopathologic downstaging and TRG. It might be hazardous to evaluate tumor response with respect to volume reduction and to select the surgical method on this basis.

AB - Purpose: To compare tumor volume reduction rate, histopathologic downstaging, and tumor regression grade (TRG) among tumor responses in rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients and Methods: Between 2002 and 2004, 30 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer underwent preoperative CRT, followed by surgical resection. Magnetic resonance volumetry was performed before and after CRT. Histopathologic tumor staging and tumor regression were reviewed. We compared pre- and post-CRT tumor volume and percent of volume reduction, according to histopathologic downstaging and TRG. Results: The tumor volume reduction rates ranged from 14.6% to 100%. Mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volumes were significantly smaller in patients who showed T downstaging than in those who did not (p = 0.040, 0.014). The mean tumor volume reduction was 66.4% vs. 55.2% (p = 0.361). However, the mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volume and mean tumor volume reduction rate between patients who showed N downstaging and those who did not were not statistically different (p = 0.176, 0.767, and 0.899). With respect to TRG, the mean pre- and post-CRT tumor volumes were not statistically significant (p = 0.108, 0.708, and 0.120). Conclusion: Tumor volume reduction rate does not correlate with histopathologic downstaging and TRG. It might be hazardous to evaluate tumor response with respect to volume reduction and to select the surgical method on this basis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845663185&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845663185&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.08.020

DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.08.020

M3 - Article

VL - 67

SP - 204

EP - 210

JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

SN - 0360-3016

IS - 1

ER -