Predictive factors and prognostic significance of tumor regression grade in rectal cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
739 Background: Several systems describe tumour regression grade (TRG) after neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) in rectal cancer; however, there is lack of literature on factors predicting TRG and its prognostic significance when comparing two TRG systems. Methods: Chart review of 187 patients (pts) diagnosed with rectal cancer managed at our institution identified clinical T3 or T4 and/ or node positive adenocarcinoma who completed nCRT between 2005-2011. Assessment of TRG post-nCRT in 104 pts was determined using College of American Pathologists (CAP) and Modified Rectal Cancer Regression Grade (mRCRG) scoring systems. Logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with TRG. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test to compare groups and Cox proportional hazard model to estimate hazard ratio. Results: Median age of 103 eligible pts was 64 (range [r] 31-88) and 70% were male. Median pre-nCRT tumour size was 4 cm (r 0.5-12). 61% tumours were distal. Radiation dose (RD) was >54 Gy in 57%, 50.4 Gy in 40%, and 45 Gy in 3% patients. 71% received concomitant 5 FU; 12% capecitabine and 17% according to clinical trials prior to radical surgery. Median time between completion of nCRT and surgery was 49 days. CAP scoring was 0 (21%), 1 (7%), 2 (19%), and 3 (53%) whereas mRCRG scoring was 1 (31%), 2 (21%), and 3 (48%). With median follow up 5.04 years (yr), 5 yr OS was 65%. OS was 77% for CAP 0 and 1 vs. 59% for CAP 2 and 3 (p=0.0483, HR2.4); mRCRG 1 and 2 OS was 75% vs 54% for mRCRG 3 (p= 0.0060, HR2.6). >30% reduction in pre-nCRT tumour occurred in 63% of CAP 1, 2, and 3 cases. Age (≥65 yr), higher RD and higher pre-op CEA were associated with mRCRG grade 3 (p=0.0339, 0.0415, and 0.0760 respectively). Tumour size, location, grade, type of chemotherapy, or gender were not predictive of TRG. Conclusions: Favorable TRG post-nCRT is associated with a statistically significant OS advantage. Younger age and RD escalation are associated with favorable TRG. CAP and mRCRG scoring systems of TRG were comparable for prognosis. nCRT leads to a significant cytoreduction in 63% of non-complete responders. TRG may have a future role in decisions on surgery, organ sparing, adjuvant chemotherapy, surveillance and patient counseling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".