» Articles » PMID: 35845508

The Predictive Value of Tumor Volume Reduction Ratio on Three-dimensional Endorectal Ultrasound for Tumor Response to Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Overview
Journal Ann Transl Med
Date 2022 Jul 18
PMID 35845508
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy remains part of the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Subsequent treatment individualization requires accurate prediction of tumor response to chemoradiotherapy. Three-dimensional endorectal ultrasound (3D-ERUS) can automatically capture and store the images of the rectal wall and rectal cancer with high resolution. In this study, we aimed to assess the correlation and predictive value between tumor volume changes measured on 3D-ERUS and the histopathological tumor response after chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Methods: A total of 54 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent chemoradiotherapy and had complete 3D-ERUS data pre-and post-chemoradiotherapy were enrolled in the study. The tumor volume pre-and post-chemoradiotherapy was measured manually on 3D-ERUS, and the tumor volume reduction ratio was calculated. The histopathological tumor regression grade (TRG) was used to assess tumor response. The differences in volumetry parameters were compared between groups with varying tumor response. The diagnostic efficacy of the tumor volume reduction ratio was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Results: The mean age of all patients was 55.19±12.46 years. The relative proportions of TRG 0-3 were 29.6% (16/54), 16.6% (9/54), 50% (27/54), and 3.8% (2/54), respectively. The median tumor volumes post-chemoradiotherapy in good responders (TRG 0-1, median tumor volume =3.26 cm) and the complete response group (TRG 0, median tumor volume =2.61 cm) were smaller than those in poor responders (TRG 2-3, median tumor volume =5.43 cm) and the partial response group (TRG 1-3, median tumor volume =4.00 cm), while tumor volume reduction ratios were higher than those of poor responders (79.32% 59.67%) and the partial response group (82.22% 61.64%), with significant differences (all P values <0.05). The ROC curves showed that the cut-off values of the tumor volume reduction ratio to predict good responders and complete response were 67.77% and 72.02%, respectively. The corresponding areas under the curve in the prediction of good responders and complete response were 0.830 and 0.829, respectively.

Conclusions: The tumor volume reduction ratio measured on 3D-ERUS might be a helpful indicator for tumor response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Citing Articles

Combined transrectal ultrasound and radiomics model for evaluating the therapeutic effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Abuliezi D, She Y, Liao Z, Luo Y, Yang Y, Huang Q Int J Colorectal Dis. 2025; 40(1):7.

PMID: 39762476 PMC: 11703880. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-024-04792-8.


Prediction of pathological complete response and prognosis in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Xu Y, Tao D, Qin S, Xu X, Yang K, Xing Z World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2024; 16(6):2520-2530.

PMID: 38994151 PMC: 11236239. DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v16.i6.2520.


Prognostic Value of Tumor Volume, Tumor Volume Reduction Rate and Magnetic Resonance Tumor Regression Grade in Rectal Cancer.

Pikuniene I, Straksyte V, Basevicius A, Zilinskas J, Ambraziene R, Janciauskiene R Medicina (Kaunas). 2023; 59(12).

PMID: 38138297 PMC: 10744935. DOI: 10.3390/medicina59122194.


Sense and non-sense of imaging in the era of organ preservation for rectal cancer.

Ou X, van der Reijd D, Lambregts D, Grotenhuis B, van Triest B, Beets G Br J Radiol. 2023; 96(1151):20230318.

PMID: 37750870 PMC: 10607404. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20230318.


Imaging for guiding a more tailored approach in rectal cancer patients.

Spolverato G, Crimi F, Pucciarelli S Ann Transl Med. 2022; 10(15):811.

PMID: 36035009 PMC: 9403946. DOI: 10.21037/atm-22-3498.

References
1.
Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz L, Sargent D, Ford R . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2008; 45(2):228-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026. View

2.
Khakoo S, Carter P, Brown G, Valeri N, Picchia S, Antonietta Bali M . MRI Tumor Regression Grade and Circulating Tumor DNA as Complementary Tools to Assess Response and Guide Therapy Adaptation in Rectal Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2019; 26(1):183-192. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1996. View

3.
Pucciarelli S, De Paoli A, Guerrieri M, La Torre G, Maretto I, De Marchi F . Local excision after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: results of a multicenter phase II clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013; 56(12):1349-56. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182a2303e. View

4.
Janssen M, Ollers M, van Stiphout R, Riedl R, van den Bogaard J, Buijsen J . PET-based treatment response evaluation in rectal cancer: prediction and validation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 82(2):871-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.038. View

5.
Deng Y, Chi P, Lan P, Wang L, Chen W, Cui L . Modified FOLFOX6 With or Without Radiation Versus Fluorouracil and Leucovorin With Radiation in Neoadjuvant Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Initial Results of the Chinese FOWARC Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Three-Arm Phase III.... J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(27):3300-7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.6198. View