Comparison of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and tumor regression grade in evaluating the effect of preoperative systemic therapy of gastric cancer
Ming-Yu Lai,
Shi-Yang Kang,
Yu-Ting Sun,
Ting-Ting Quan,
Shi-Xun Lu,
Cai-Yun He,
Zhi-Wei Zhou,
Li-Qiong Yang,
Hui-Yan Luo,
Feng-Hua Wang,
Yu-Hong Li,
Rui-Hua Xu,
Wen-Long Guan,
Miao-Zhen Qiu
Affiliations
Ming-Yu Lai
Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Shi-Yang Kang
Department of Anesthesiology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Yu-Ting Sun
Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Ting-Ting Quan
Department of Image, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Shi-Xun Lu
Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Cai-Yun He
Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Zhi-Wei Zhou
Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Li-Qiong Yang
Department of Experiment, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Hui-Yan Luo
Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Feng-Hua Wang
Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Yu-Hong Li
Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Rui-Hua Xu
Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Wen-Long Guan
Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Miao-Zhen Qiu
Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine
Abstract Background Both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and tumor regression grade (TRG) play key roles in evaluating tumor response. We analyzed the consistency of TRG and RECIST 1.1 for gastric cancer (GC) patients and compared their prognostic values. Methods Patients with GC who received preoperative chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy and had records of TRG from December 2013 to October 2021 were enrolled retrospectively. TRG 0–1 and 2–3 are considered as corresponding to complete response (CR)/partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD)/progress disease (PD) in RECIST 1.1, respectively. The primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The consistency of RECIST and TRG was examined by kappa statistics. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan Meier method. Result One hundred fifty seven GC patients were enrolled, including 125 with preoperative chemotherapy and 32 with chemoimmunotherapy. Among them, 56 patients had measurable lesions. Only 19.6% (11/56) of the patients had consistent results between RECIST 1.1 and TRG. TRG was correlated with both OS and DFS (P = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively) while response according to RECIST1.1 was not (P = 0.86 and 0.23, respectively). The median DFS had not reached in the TRG 0–1 group and was 16.13 months in TRG 2–3 group. TRG 2–3 was associated with young age and peritoneal or liver metastasis. Besides, preoperative chemoimmunotherapy had a significantly higher pCR rate than chemotherapy alone (34.4% vs 8.0%, P < 0.001). Conclusion TRG was in poor agreement with RECIST 1.1. TRG was better than RECIST 1.1 in predicting DFS and OS for GC patients who received preoperative therapy.