Frontiers in Oncology (Mar 2024)

Risk stratification of stage II rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma to predict the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery

  • Yahang Liang,
  • Yahang Liang,
  • Hualin Liao,
  • Hualin Liao,
  • Haoran Shi,
  • Tao Li,
  • Tao Li,
  • Yaxiong Liu,
  • Yaxiong Liu,
  • Yuli Yuan,
  • Yuli Yuan,
  • Mingming Li,
  • Mingming Li,
  • Aidi Li,
  • Aidi Li,
  • Yang Liu,
  • Yang Liu,
  • Yao Yao,
  • Yao Yao,
  • Taiyuan Li,
  • Taiyuan Li

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1352660
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundThe treatment strategy for stage II rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma (RMA) recommends neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCR) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). However, the necessity of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) remains controversial.Materials and methodsChi-square test was used to assess the relationship between pathological classification, AC and clinicopathological characteristics. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and the log-rank test were utilized to analyze differences in overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) among different groups. Cox regression identified prognostic factors. Nomogram was established utilizing the independent prognostic factors. X-tile divided patients into three risk subgroups.ResultsCompared to RMA, rectal adenocarcinoma (RA) demonstrates longer OS and CSS in all and non-AC stage II patients, with no difference in OS and CSS for AC stage II patients. Propensity score matching analyses yielded similar results. Stratified analysis found that AC both improve OS of RA and RMA patients. Age, gender, pathologic T stage, regional nodes examined, and tumor size were identified as independent prognostic factors for RMA patients without AC. A nomogram was constructed to generate risk scores and categorize RMA patients into three subgroups based on these scores. KM curves revealed AC benefits for moderate and high-risk groups but not for the low-risk group. The external validation cohort yielded similar results.ConclusionsIn summary, our study suggests that, compared to stage II RA patients, stage II RMA patients benefit more from AC after NCR. AC is recommended for moderate and high-risk stage II RMA patients after NCR, whereas low-risk patients do not require AC.

Keywords