Advertisement

Interobserver Variability in Assessing Pathologic Response to Preoperative Treatment in Rectal Cancer: Standardization of an Evaluation Method and Comparisons Between Published Scales

  • Leonardo S. Lino-SilvaEmail author
  • Janet C. Guzmán-López
  • Jenny A. Salazar-García
  • Jazmín D. Chávez-Hernández
  • Armando Gamboa-Domínguez
  • Erwin Chiquete
  • Alejandro Mohar
  • Jonathan Morales-Soto
  • Rosa A. Salcedo-Hernández
Brief Communication
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Evaluating tumor response of rectal cancer to preoperative chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) has a prognostic value on overall survival; however, grading tumor response is a controversial issue due to lack of reproducibility and the lack of information about the standardization of the evaluation.

Methods

We performed this study to examine the variability between observers’ assessment of the pathological responses to NCRT using a systematic quantitative grading system based on a percentage of tumor response against the proportion of residual tumor burden. As a secondary aim, we classified the tumor response according to six published systems to determine the correlation between the observers into each grading system.

Results

From 70 cases, the mean age was 60.6 ± 11.78 years, 36 (51.47%) patients were female, the pathological T stage was pT3 in 48.6% of cases, pT2 in 32.9%, pT1 in 11.4% and 7.1% in pT4, whereas 40% had lymph node metastasis. The median lymph node count was ten lymph nodes (range 6–43). Our method of tumor regression evaluation has a good intraclass correlation (ICC) value. From the scales compared regarding interobserver agreement, the Ryan’s and Royal College of Pathologists showed fair agreement (but good ICC); the scales from Dworak, Becker, and Rizk showed substantial agreement (and good to excellent ICC values); and the scale from Rödel showed almost-perfect agreement.

Results

All the evaluated systems showed good interobserver agreement, but the best interobserver agreement was reached with the Rödel’s scale.

Keywords

Rectal cancer Interobserver agreement Tumor response Scales Chemoradiotherapy 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Declaration of Authorship

All authors meet the criteria for authorship as per the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), all have participated at (1) conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) final approval of the version submitted; AND (4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work regarding the accuracy or integrity of the research.

Conception and Design

All authors.

Financial Support

Leonardo S. Lino-Silva.

Provision of Study Materials or Patients

All authors.

Collection and Assembly of Data

Leonardo S. Lino-Silva, Cristina J Guzmán-López.

Data Analysis (Statistical Analysis) and Interpretation

Leonardo S. Lino-Silva, Rosa A. Salcedo-Hernández.

Manuscript Writing

All authors.

Final Revision and Approval of Manuscript

All authors.

Guarantor

LSLS.

References

  1. 1.
    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yeo S, Kim D, Kim T, Chang H, Oh J, Park W, et al. Pathologic complete response of primary tumor following preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: long-term outcomes and prognostic significance of pathological nodal status (KROG 09-01). Ann Surg. 2010;252:998–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kong JC, Guerra GR, Warrier SK, Lynch AC, Michael M, Ngan SY, et al. Prognostic value of tumour regression grade in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis. 2018;20(7):574–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mandard AM, Dalibard F, Mandard JC, Marnay J, Henry-Amar M, Petiot JF, et al. Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations. Cancer. 1994;73(11):2680–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dworak O, Keilholz L, Hoffmann A. Pathological features of rectal cancer after preoperative radiochemotherapy. Int J Color Dis. 1997;12(1):19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agarwal A, Chang GJ, Hu CY, Taggart M, Rashid A, Park IJ, et al. Quantified pathologic response assessed as residual tumor burden is a predictor of recurrence-free survival in patients with rectal cancer who undergo resection after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Cancer. 2013;119(24):4231–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rödel C, Martus P, Papadoupolos T, Füzesi L, Klimpfinger M, Fietkau R, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8688–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rizk NP, Venkatraman E, Bains MS, Park B, Flores R, Tang L, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system does not accurately predict survival in patients receiving multimodality therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(5):507–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ryan R, Gibbons D, Hyland JM, Treanor D, White A, Mulcahy HE, et al. Pathological response following long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Histopathology. 2005;47(2):141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams GT, Quirke P, Shepherd NA. Dataset for colorectal cancer (2nd edition). The Royal College of Pathologists http://www.rcpath.org/publications-media/publications/datasets/colorectal-cancer (accessed March 2019).
  11. 11.
    Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005;85(3):257–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, Grieve R, Khanna S, Couture J, et al. Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9666):821–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker K, Mueller JD, Schulmacher C, Ott K, Fink U, Busch R, et al. Histomorphology and grading of regression in gastric carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer. 2003;98(7):1521–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bujko K, Nasierowska-Guttmejer A, Wyrwicz L, Malinowska M, Krynski J, Kosakowska E, et al. Neoadjuvant treatment for unresectable rectal cancer: an interim analysis of a multicentre randomized study. Radiother Oncol. 2013;107:171–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonardo S. Lino-Silva
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Janet C. Guzmán-López
    • 2
  • Jenny A. Salazar-García
    • 1
  • Jazmín D. Chávez-Hernández
    • 2
  • Armando Gamboa-Domínguez
    • 3
  • Erwin Chiquete
    • 4
  • Alejandro Mohar
    • 5
  • Jonathan Morales-Soto
    • 1
  • Rosa A. Salcedo-Hernández
    • 6
  1. 1.AFINES program, Medicine FacultyMexico’s National Autonomus University (UNAM)Mexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Gastrointestinal Pathology DivisionInstituto Nacional de Cancerología de México (Mexico’s National Cancer Institute)Mexico cityMexico
  3. 3.Surgical pathologyMedical Sciences and Nutrition National Institute “Salvador Zubirán”Mexico CityMexico
  4. 4.Neurology divisiónMedical Sciences and Nutrition National Institute “Salvador Zubirán”Mexico CityMexico
  5. 5.Biomedics Research InstituteMexico’s National Autonomus University (UNAM)Mexico CityMexico
  6. 6.Surgical oncologyNational Cancer InstituteMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations