Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prognostic value of tumor regression grade (TRG) after oncological gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Abboretti, Francesco; Mantziari, Styliani; Didisheim, Laura; Schäfer, Markus; Teixeira Farinha, Hugo.
Affiliation
  • Abboretti F; Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital, CHUV Rue du Bugnon 46, Lausanne, 1011, Switzerland.
  • Mantziari S; Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland.
  • Didisheim L; Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital, CHUV Rue du Bugnon 46, Lausanne, 1011, Switzerland.
  • Schäfer M; Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland.
  • Teixeira Farinha H; Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital, CHUV Rue du Bugnon 46, Lausanne, 1011, Switzerland.
Langenbecks Arch Surg ; 409(1): 199, 2024 Jun 27.
Article de En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38935163
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Perioperative chemotherapy combined with surgical resection represent the gold standard in the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer. The Mandard tumor regression score (TRG) is widely used to evaluate pathological response to neoadjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of TRG in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free (DFS).

METHODS:

Retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent oncological gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy from January 2007 to December 2019 for gastric adenocarcinoma was performed. Based on their TRG status they were categorized into two groups good responders (TRG 1-2) and poor responders (TRG 3-5). Subsequent multivariable analyses were conducted.

RESULTS:

Seventy-four patients were included, whereby 15 (20.3%) were TRG 1-2. Neoadjuvant regimens for TRG 1-2 vs. TRG 3-5 were similar MAGIC (53% vs. 39%), FLOT (40% vs. 36%), FOLFOX (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.462). Histologic types according to Lauren classification for TRG 1-2 vs. TRG 3-5 were 13% vs. 29% intestinal, 53% vs. 44% diffuse and 34% vs. 27% indeterminate (p = 0.326). TRG 1-2 group exhibited significantly less advanced ypT (46% vs. 10%, p = 0.001) and ypN stages (66% vs. 37%, p = 0.008), alongside a diminished recurrence rate (20% vs. 42%, p = 0.111). The 3-year DFS was significantly better in this group (81% vs. 47%, p = 0.041) whereas the disparity in three-year OS (92% vs. 55%, p = 0.054) did not attain statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS:

TRG 1-2 was associated with less advanced ypT and ypN stage and better DFS compared to TRG 3-5 patients, without a significant impact on OS.
Sujet(s)
Mots clés

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Sujet principal: Tumeurs de l'estomac / Adénocarcinome / Traitement néoadjuvant / Gastrectomie Limites: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Langue: En Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays d'affiliation: Suisse

Texte intégral: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Base de données: MEDLINE Sujet principal: Tumeurs de l'estomac / Adénocarcinome / Traitement néoadjuvant / Gastrectomie Limites: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Langue: En Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Année: 2024 Type de document: Article Pays d'affiliation: Suisse