The Role of Ki-67 and Pre-cytoreduction Parameters in Selecting Diffuse Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma (DMPM) Patients for Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC).

BACKGROUND: We conducted a prognostic analysis of preoperative parameters and Ki-67 determination to develop selection criteria for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and HIPEC in patients with diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM). METHODS: DMPM patients treated with CRS and HIPEC at NCI of Milan participated in this study. Multivariate analysis was conducted using Cox proportional hazard model and conditional inference tree method to select independent predictors of overall survival (OS) from the followings pre-cytoreduction parameters: age, sex, ECOG performance status, Charlson comorbidity index, previous systemic chemotherapy, CA-125, histological subtype (epithelioid vs. biphasic/sarcomatoid), Ki-67 (determined with immunohistochemistry), and peritoneal cancer index (PCI). RESULTS: A total of 117 patients (male/female: 67/50) with median age of 60.5 (range 22-75) years were included. Eighty-three patients had ECOG performance status = 0, median Charlson comorbidity index was 4 (range 2-9), and 102 cases had epithelioid subtype. Median Ki-67 was 5 % (range 1-60). Ninety-four (80.3 %) cases were optimally cytoreduced. The Cox analysis identified Ki-67, PCI, and histological subtype as independent prognosticators of OS. Conditional inference tree method identified three prognostic subsets: (I) Ki-67 ≤ 9 %; (II) Ki-67 > 9 % and PCI ≤ 17; and (III) Ki-67 > 9 % and PCI > 17. The median OS for subsets I, II, and III were, 86.6, 63.2, and 10.3 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ki-67 is a powerful prognosticator that allows, along with PCI, and histological subtype, a good prediction of OS in patients with DMPM. Patients with Ki-67 > 9 % and PCI > 17 are unlikely to benefit from the procedure and should be considered for other treatment protocols.

Respuesta clínica completa postneoadyuvancia en cáncer de recto estadio III: observación o cirugía / Complete Clinical Response following Neoadjuvant Treatment of Stage II Rectal Cancer: Observation of Surgery

La respuesta clínica completa posterior a la terapia neoadyuvante del cáncer localmente avanzado de recto, se ha considerado suficiente para la implementación de una estrategia no quirúrgica, de observación y seguimiento por algunos autores. El manejo estándar de esta patología es la realización de manejo quirúrgico oncológico radical del tumor primario, 6 a 10 semanas posterior a la finalización de la neoadyuvancia. En esta revisión se exponen los pros y contras de cada propuesta y se describen las implicaciones y recomendaciones de cada alternativa de manejo.

Complete clinical response after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer has been considered sufficient for implementation of a non-surgical approach of observation and monitoring by some authors. Standard management of this condition is radical resection of the primary tumor six to ten weeks after completion of neoadjuvant therapy. In this review the pros and cons of each proposal are presented, and implications and recommendations for each alternative are described.

Desenlaces del manejo no quirúrgico posterior a neoadyuvancia del cáncer localmente avanzado de recto / Outcomes of the nonsurgical management of locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment / Outcomesofthenon-surgicalmanagementoflocallyadvancedrectalcancerafterneoadjuvanttreatment

Objetivos: Describir características clínicas, histopatológicas y desenlaces de pacientes con cáncer localmente avanzado de recto y respuesta clínica completa posterior a la neoadyuvancia, sin manejo quirúrgico. Métodos: Estudio de cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes con cáncer de recto estadios II y III, llevados a quimiorradiación, en seguimiento clínico. Se evaluó supervivencia libre de enfermedad, global y tasa de recaída. Se describen características biológicas (Kras, Ki67, p53) y morfológicas del tumor (grado, invasión linfovascular y perineural). Resultados: Entre enero de 2003 y junio de 2013, 19 pacientes con cáncer localmente avanzado de recto y respuesta clínica completa postneoadyuvancia, no aceptaron el tratamiento quirúrgico radical. Con mediana de seguimiento de 21 meses (4-92 meses), se presentaron recaídas del: 21% en el primer año, 36% a los 3 años y 42% a los 5 años (total: 8 pacientes). Se presentó recaída local en 50% de casos, regional en 50% y no hubo recaída sistémica. La tasa estimada de recaída local fue 2,3 recaídas por 100 pacientes/mes (IC 95%:1,21-4,5) y de recaída regional 1,3 recaídas por 100 pacientes/mes (IC 95%:0,5-3,1). No se estableció relación, entre la expresión de factores biológicos del tumor primario y los desenlaces. Conclusiones: Se ratifica la indicación del tratamiento quirúrgico radical, posterior a la neoadyuvancia, en todos los pacientes con cáncer localmente avanzado de recto. Las bajas tasas de recaída local y regional de nuestra serie, sugieren la posibilidad de resección local u observación, en casos seleccionados. La individualización y deseo del paciente, debe orientar la toma de decisiones.

Objectives: To describe the clinical and histopathological characteristics and outcomes of patient with non-surgically managed locally advanced rectal cancer and a complete clinical response to neoadjuvant treatment. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on a cohort of patients with stages II and III rectal cancer, on clinical follow up after subjected to chemoradiotherapy. The overall disease free survival and recurrence rates were evaluated. The biological (Kras, Ki67, p53) and morphological (grade, lymphovascular and perineural invasion) characteristics of the tumor were recorded. Results: Between January 2003 and June 2013, a total of 19 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment, did not accept radical surgical treatment. With a median follow-up of 21 months (range 4-92 months), the recurrences were: 21% in the first year, 36% at 3 years, and 42% at 5 years (total: 8 patients). There was local recurrence in 50% of the cases, regional in 50%, and there were no systemic recurrences. The estimated local recurrence rate was 2.3 recurrences per 100 patients/month (95% CI; 1.21 - 4.5), and a regional recurrence of 1.3 recurrences per 100 patients/month (95% CI: 0.5 - 3.1). No relationship was found between the expression of biological factors of the primary tumor and the outcomes. Conclusions: The indication for radical surgical treatment after neoadjuvant treatment is demonstrated in all patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The low local and regional recurrence rates of this series suggest the possibility of local resection or observation in selected cases. Individualization and the wishes of the patient must be taken into account when making decisions.