Skip to main content

Table 4 Pathologoical outcomes, first part

From: Total neoadjuvant therapy for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic minireview

Study

ARMS

(N patients)

ypT stage

N (%)

ypN stage

N (%)

pCR

N (%)

Local recurrence

N (%)

Distant recurrence

N (%)

  

ypT0

ypTis

ypT1

ypT2

ypT3

ypT4

ypN0

ypN1

ypN2

ypNx

   

EudraCT

EXP. ARM (28)

7 (25%)

1 (4%)

1 (4%)

4 (14%)

13 (46%)

1 (4%)

13 (46%)

9 (32%)

5 (18%)

–

7 (25%)

–

–

CONTROL (29)

8 (28%)

1 (3%)

1 (3%)

5 (17%)

12 (41%)

1 (3%)

16 (55%)

9 (31%)

3 (10%)

8 (28%)

GCR-3

EXP. ARM (56)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

8 (14%)

3 (5%)

13 (23%)

CONTROL (52)

7 (13%)

1 (2%)

11 (21%)

POLISH II

EXP. ARM (261)

24 (12%)

–

5 (3%)

53 (26%)

92 (46%)

28 (14%)

136 (68%)

37 (19%)

27 (14%)

–

24 (12%)

–

62 (25%)

CONTROL (254)

37 (17%)

3 (1%)

47 (22%)

110 (51%)

19 (9%)

150 (69%)

43 (20%)

26 (12%)

37 (17%)

75 (29%)

WAIT

EXP. ARM (25)

5 (20%)

–

1 (4%)

5 (20%)

13 (52%)

1 (4%)

16 (73%)

5 (20%)

4 (16%)

–

–

–

–

CONTROL (24)

6 (25%)

2 (8%)

4 (17%)

11 (46%)

1 (4%)

19 (79%)

2 (8%)

3 (13%)

KCSG CO 14-03

EXP. ARM (53)

6 (14%)

0

1 (2%)

12 (27%)

24 (55%)

1 (2%)

28 (64%)

15 (34%)

1 (2%)

–

6 (14%)

–

–

CONTROL (55)

3 (6%)

1 (2%)

1 (2%)

8 (15%)

39 (75%)

0

27 (52%)

20 (28%)

5 (10%)

3 (6%)

FOWARC

ARM TNT + RT (165)

84 (87%)

65 (44%)

–

41 (27%)

–

–

ARM TNT (165)

54 (35%)

98 (65%)

10 (7%)

CONTROL (165)

53 (37%)

90 (63%)

20 (14%)

RAPIDO

EXP. ARM (462)

129 (30%)

2 (< 1%)

17 (4%)

82 (19%)

157 (37%)

36 (9%)

317 (75%)

75 (18%)

31 (7%)

–

120 (28%)

29 (22%)

86 (67%)

CONTROL (450)

69 (17%)

1 (< 1%)

17 (4%)

96 (24%)

190 (48%)

25 (6%)

273 (69%)

78 (20%)

47 (12%)

57 (14%)

17 (13%)

123 (81%)

PRODIGE-23

EXP. ARM (231)

60 (28%)

3 (1%)

11 (5%)

57 (27%)

77 (36%)

4 (2%)

175 (83%)

30 (14%)

7 (3%)

0

59 (28%)

–

–

CONTROL (230)

27 (13%)

2 (1%)

17 (8%)

62 (29%)

103 (48%)

4 (2%)

145 (67%)

49 (23%)

20 (9%)

1 (1%)

26 (12%)

Pathologoical outcomes, second part

  

Study

Arms

(N patients)

CRM

Resection limits

N (%)

Lymphovascular invasion

N (%)

Perinervous invasion

N (%)

TRG

N (%)

  

 > 1 mm

 ≤ 1 mm

R0

R1

R2

  

1

2

3

EudraCT

EXP. ARM (28)

27 (96%)

1 (4%)

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

CONTROL (29)

25 (86%)

4 (14%)

GCR-3

EXP. ARM (56)

–

–

48 (86%)

2 (4%)

2 (4%)

–

–

–

CONTROL (52)

45 (87%)

1 (2%)

–

POLISH II

EXP. ARM (261)

–

–

178 (71%)

20 (8%)

5 (2%)

–

–

–

CONTROL (254)

202 (77%)

17 (7%)

1 (1%)

WAIT

EXP. ARM (25)

–

–

23 (92%)

2 (8%)

–

–

–

–

CONTROL (24)

22 (92%)

2 (8%)

KCSG CO 14-03

EXP. ARM (53)

37 (84%)

7 (16%)

–

–

–

7 (16%)

24 (55%)

7 (16%)

CONTROL (55)

47 (90%)

4 (7%)

13 (25%)

28 (54%)

7 (14%)

FOWARC

ARM TNT + RT (165)

–

–

134 (90%)

10 (7%)

5 (3%)

–

–

102 (69%)

46 (31%)

ARM TNT (165)

136 (89%)

8 (5%)

8 (5%)

50 (33%)

102 (67%)

CONTROL (165)

128 (91%)

8 (6%)

5 (3%)

70 (49%)

71 (50%)

RAPIDO

EXP. ARM (462)

385 (91%)

38 (9%)

382 (90%)

38 (9%)

3 (1%)

–

–

–

CONTROL (450)

363 (91%)

35 (9%)

360 (90%)

37 (9%)

1 (< 1%)

PRODIGE-23

EXP. ARM (231)

149 (95%)

8 (5%)

201 (95%)

20 (5%)

0

17 (8%)

15 (7%)

88 (48%)

71 (38%)

26 (14%)

CONTROL (230)

173 (94%)

11 (6%)

202 (94%)

10 (5%)

2 (1%)

20 (9%)

24 (11%)

57 (32%)

99 (55%)

23 (13%)

  1. yPT stage Pathologoical T stage after neuadjuvant theraphy; yPN stage Pathologoical N stage after neuadjuvant theraphy; PCR: pathological complete response. ypTNM stage; I 12 (21%) vs 21 (40%) II 18 (32%) vs 9 (17%) III 13 (23%) vs 9 (17%) IV 1 (2%) vs 0
  2. CRM: circumferential resection margins; TRG: tumor regression grade