Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Oct 7;22(37):8414-8434.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i37.8414.

Defining response to radiotherapy in rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological scales

Muhammed R S Siddiqui  1 , Jemma Bhoday  1 , Nicholas J Battersby  1 , Manish Chand  1 , Nicholas P West  1 , Al-Mutaz Abulafi  1 , Paris P Tekkis  1 , Gina Brown  1
Affiliations

Defining response to radiotherapy in rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological scales

Muhammed R S Siddiqui et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Aim: To define good and poor regression using pathology and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) regression scales after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer.

Methods: A systematic review was performed on all studies up to December 2015, without language restriction, that were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960-2015), and EMBASE (1991-2015). Searches were performed of article bibliographies and conference abstracts. MeSH and text words used included "tumour regression", "mrTRG", "poor response" and "colorectal cancers". Clinical studies using either MRI or histopathological tumour regression grade (TRG) scales to define good and poor responders were included in relation to outcomes [local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS)]. There was no age restriction or stage of cancer restriction for patient inclusion. Data were extracted by two authors working independently and using pre-defined outcome measures.

Results: Quantitative data (prevalence) were extracted and analysed according to meta-analytical techniques using comprehensive meta-analysis. Qualitative data (LR, DR, DFS and OS) were presented as ranges. The overall proportion of poor responders after neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) was 37.7% (95%CI: 30.1-45.8). There were 19 different reported histopathological scales and one MRI regression scale (mrTRG). Clinical studies used nine and six histopathological scales for poor and good responders, respectively. All studies using MRI to define good and poor response used one scale. The most common histopathological definition for good response was the Mandard grades 1 and 2 or Dworak grades 3 and 4; Mandard 3, 4 and 5 and Dworak 0, 1 and 2 were used for poor response. For histopathological grades, the 5-year outcomes for poor responders were LR 3.4%-4.3%, DR 14.3%-20.3%, DFS 61.7%-68.1% and OS 60.7-69.1. Good pathological response 5-year outcomes were LR 0%-1.8%, DR 0%-11.6%, DFS 78.4%-86.7%, and OS 77.4%-88.2%. A poor response on MRI (mrTRG 4,5) resulted in 5-year LR 4%-29%, DR 9%, DFS 31%-59% and OS 27%-68%. The 5-year outcomes with a good response on MRI (mrTRG 1,2 and 3) were LR 1%-14%, DR 3%, DFS 64%-83% and OS 72%-90%.

Conclusion: For histopathology regression assessment, Mandard 1, 2/Dworak 3, 4 should be used for good response and Mandard 3, 4, 5/Dworak 0, 1, 2 for poor response. MRI indicates good and poor response by mrTRG1-3 and mrTRG4-5, respectively.

Keywords: Neo-adjuvant therapy; Poor response; Rectal cancer; Tumour regression; mrTRG.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: None to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Proportion of patients who responded poorly to neo-adjuvant therapy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Studies reporting on local recurrence in good and poor responders.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Studies reporting on distant recurrence in good and poor responders.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Studies reporting on disease- free survival in good and poor responders.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Studies reporting on overall survival in good and poor responders.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Proportion of patients who responded poorly to neo-adjuvant therapy according to magnetic resonance imaging.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Funnel plot for studies reporting on the prevalence of poor response according to histology.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. MacGregor TP, Maughan TS, Sharma RA. Pathological grading of regression following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: the clinical need is now. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65:867–871. - PubMed
    1. Chua YJ, Barbachano Y, Cunningham D, Oates JR, Brown G, Wotherspoon A, Tait D, Massey A, Tebbutt NC, Chau I. Neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined poor-risk rectal cancer: a phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:241–248. - PubMed
    1. Marijnen CA, Glimelius B. The role of radiotherapy in rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:943–952. - PubMed
    1. Påhlman L, Hohenberger W, Günther K, Fietkau R, Metzger U. Is radiochemotherapy necessary in the treatment of rectal cancer? Eur J Cancer. 1998;34:438–448. - PubMed
    1. Patel UB, Blomqvist LK, Taylor F, George C, Guthrie A, Bees N, Brown G. MRI after treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer: how to report tumor response--the MERCURY experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:W486–W495. - PubMed

Publication types