Construction of a model based on multipoint full-layer puncture biopsy for predicting pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer
10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20240101-00002
- VernacularTitle:基于经肛多点全层穿刺活检构建局部进展期直肠癌新辅助治疗后病理完全缓解预测模型
- Author:
Ying JIN
1
;
Zhiwei ZHAI
;
Liting SUN
;
Pingdian XIA
;
Hang HU
;
Chongqiang JIANG
;
Baocheng ZHAO
;
Hao QU
;
Qun QIAN
;
Yong DAI
;
Hongwei YAO
;
Zhenjun WANG
;
Jiagang HAN
Author Information
1. 首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院普通外科，北京 100020
- Keywords:
Rectal neoplasms, locally advanced;
Neoadjuvant radiotherapy;
Transanal multipoint full-layer puncture biopsy;
Pathological complete response;
Nomogram;
Pr
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2024;27(4):403-411
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the value of transanal multipoint full-layer puncture biopsy (TMFP) in predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy (nCRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and to establish a predictive model for providing clinical guidance regarding the treatment of LARC.Methods:In this multicenter, prospective, cohort study, we collected data on 110 LARC patients from four hospitals between April 2020 and March 2023: Beijing Chaoyang Hospital of Capital Medical University (50 patients), Beijing Friendship Hospital of Capital Medical University (41 patients), Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (16 patients), and Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (three patients). The patients had all received TMFP after completing standard nCRT. The variables studied included (1) clinicopathological characteristics; (2) clinical complete remission (cCR) and efficacy of TMFP in determining pCR after NCRT in LARC patients; and (3) hospital attended, sex, age, clinical T- and N-stages, distance between the lower margin of the tumor and the anal verge, baseline and post-radiotherapy serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9 concentrations, chemotherapy regimen, use of immunosuppressants with or without radiotherapy, radiation therapy dosage, interval between surgery and radiotherapy, surgical procedure, clinical T/N stage after radiotherapy, cCR, pathological results of TMFP, puncture method (endoscopic or percutaneous), and number and timing of punctures. Single-factor and multifactorial logistic regression analysis were used to determine the factors affecting pCR after NCRT in LARC patients. A prediction model was constructed based on the results of multivariat analysis and the performance of this model evaluated by analyzing subject work characteristics (ROC), calibration, and clinical decision-making (DCA) curves. pCR was defined as complete absence of tumor cells on microscopic examination of the surgical specimens of rectal cancer (including lymph node dissection) after NCRT, that is, ypT0+N0. cCR was defined according to the Chinese Neoadjuvant Rectal Cancer Waiting Watch Database Study Collaborative Group criteria after treatment, which specify an absence of ulceration and nodules on endoscopy; negative rectal palpation; no tumor signals on rectal MRI T2 and DWI sequences; normal serum CEA concentrations, and no evidence of recurrence on pelvic computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging.Results:Of the 110 patients, 45 (40.9%) achieved pCR after nCRT, which was combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in 34 (30.9%). cCR was diagnosed before puncture in 38 (34.5%) patients, 43 (39.1%) of the punctures being endoscopic. There were no complications of puncture such as enterocutaneous fistulae, vaginal injury, prostatic injury, or presacral bleeding . Only one (2.3%) patient had a small amount of blood in the stools, which was relieved by anal pressure. cCR had a sensitivity of 57.8% (26/45) for determining pCR, specificity of 81.5% (53/65), accuracy of 71.8% (79/110), positive predictive value 68.4% (26/38), and negative predictive value of 73.6% (53/72). In contrast, the sensitivity of TMFP pathology in determining pCR was 100% (45/45), specificity 66.2% (43/65), accuracy 80.0% (88/110), positive predictive value 67.2% (45/67), and negative predictive value 100.0% (43/43). In this study, the sensitivity of TMFP for pCR (100.0% vs. 57.8%, χ 2=24.09, P<0.001) was significantly higher than that for cCR. However, the accuracy of pCR did not differ significantly (80.0% vs. 71.8%, χ 2=2.01, P=0.156). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that a ≥4 cm distance between the lower edge of the tumor and the anal verge (OR=7.84, 95%CI: 1.48-41.45, P=0.015), non-cCR (OR=4.81, 95%CI: 1.39-16.69, P=0.013), and pathological diagnosis by TMFP (OR=114.29, the 95%CI: 11.07-1180.28, P<0.001) were risk factors for pCR after NCRT in LARC patients. Additionally, endoscopic puncture (OR=0.02, 95%CI: 0.05-0.77, P=0.020) was a protective factor for pCR after NCRT in LARC patients. The area under the ROC curve of the established prediction model was 0.934 (95%CI: 0.892-0.977), suggesting that the model has good discrimination. The calibration curve was relatively close to the ideal 45° reference line, indicating that the predicted values of the model were in good agreement with the actual values. A decision-making curve showed that the model had a good net clinical benefit. Conclusion:Our predictive model, which incorporates TMFP, has considerable accuracy in predicting pCR after nCRT in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. This may provide a basis for more precisely selecting individualized therapy.
