Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  182 / 1082 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 182 / 1082 Next Page
Page Background

S169

ESTRO 36 2017

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion

18

FDG-PET is able to define active bone marrow within

pelvic osseous structures.

ACT

BM is a predictor

of decreased blood cells nadirs in anal cancer patients

undergoing concurrent chemo-radiation. Lumbar-sacral

bone marrow dose seems to be the strongest predictor.

PV-0325 Tumor Regression Grading in the

CAO/ARO/AIO-04 phase 3 trial in locally advanced

rectal carcinoma

E. Fokas

1

, M. Ghadimi

2

, R. Fietkau

3

, P. Ströbel

4

, A.

Hartmann

5

, R. Sauer

6

, T. Liersch

2

, T. Hothorn

7

, C.

Wittekind

8

, C. Rödel

1

1

Goethe University Frankfurt, Department of

Radiotherapy and Oncology, Frankfurt, Germany

2

University of Göttingen, Department of General-

Visceral and Pediatric Surgery, Göttingen, Germany

3

University of Erlangen, Department of Radiation

Oncology, Erlangen, Germany

4

University of Göttingen, Deparment of Pathology,

Göttingen, Germany

5

University of Erlangen, Deparment of Pathology,

Erlangen, Germany

6

University of Erlangen, Deparment of Radiation

Oncology, Erlangen, Germany

7

University of Zurich, Epidemiology- Biostatistics and

Prevention Institute, Zurich, Switzerland

8

University of Leipzig, Institute of Pathology, Leipzig,

Germany

Purpose or Objective

We examined the prognostic value of tumor regression

grading (TRG) in 1208 patients with locally advanced

rectal carcinoma treated within the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial

after a median follow-up of 50 months.

Material and Methods

TRG and clinicopathologic parameters were correlated to

clinical outcome. Statistical differences between groups

were calculated by the Log-rank test, and incidence

curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. The

Cox regression and the Fine-Gray models were used for the

multivariate analysis. We used the four Prentice criteria

(PC1-4) to assess the surrogacy of TRG for disease-free

survival (DFS).

Results

The 3-year cumulative incidence of DFS, distant

metastases, local recurrence and overall survival (OS)

were 64.6%, 25.4%, 6.9% and 76.8% for patients with TRG

0+1 (poor regression), 77.6%, 18.3%, 3.3% and 89.2% for

TRG 2 + 3 (intermediate regression), and 92.3%, 4.1%, 0%

and 96.2% for TRG 4 (complete regression), respectively

(P < .001, for all four endpoints). Due to multicollinearity,

TRG 4 and pathologic stage was not assessed within the

same model. TRG 2+3 vs TRG 0+1 after preoperative CRT

remained an independent prognostic factor for DFS (HR,

0.677; P = .007), the cumulative incidence of local

recurrence (HR, 0.504; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.582; P <

.001). Notably, TRG satisfied PC1-3 for individual-level

surrogacy (P = .037, P < .001 and P < .001, respectively).

The treatment effect on DFS was captured by TRG and

therefore PC4 satisfaction is plausible.

Conclusion

TRG following preoperative chemoradiotherapy predicted

for a favorable long-term outcome in multivariate

analysis. In the era of personalized medicine. TRG might

constitute an attractive option to validate molecular

biomarkers, facilitate successful clinical testing of new

biological agents and tailor treatment-adaptive strategies

based on initial response in early phase trials in the era of

personalized medicine. Further examination and

validation of TRG as surrogate for DFS based on large

independent phase III trials is needed and should be

enhanced for its implementation in the regular pathologic

work-up.

PV-0326 Time to surgery and pCR after neoadjuvant

CRT in rectal cancer: a population study on 2113

patients

G. Macchia

1

, M. Gambacorta

2

, G. Chiloiro

2

, G. Mantello

3

,

A. De Paoli

4

, G. Montesi

5

, A. Sainato

6

, M. Lupattelli

7

, L.

Caravatta

8

, F. Perrotti

9

, M. Rosetto

10

, F. Filippone

11

, R.

Niespolo

12

, M. Osti

13

, L. Belgioia

14

, C. Boso

15

, A.

Fontana

16

, S. Parisi

17

, A. Galardi

18

, L. Turri

19

, P.

Sciacero

20

, L. Giaccherini

21

, C. Masciocchi

2

, A. Morganti

21

,

V. Valentini

2

1

Fondazione di Ricerca e Cura “Giovanni Paolo II,

Radiotherapy Unit, Campobasso, Italy

2

Fondazione “Policlinico Gemelli”- Università Cattolica

S. Cuore, Department of Radiotherapy, Roma, Italy

3

Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria- Ospedali Riuniti,

Radiotherapy Unit, Ancona, Italy

4

Oncological Referral Center, Radiation Oncology

Department, Aviano, Italy

5

ULSS18, Radiotherapy Unit, Rovigo, Italy

6

University Hospital, Radiotherapy Unit, Pisa, Italy

7

'S. Maria della Misericordia' Hospital, Radiotherapy

Unit, Perugia, Italy

8

'A. Businco' Regional Oncological Hospital, Radiation

Oncology Department, Cagliari, Italy

9

'SS Annunziata' Hospital- 'G. D'Annunzio' University,

Radiotherapy Unit, Chieti, Italy

10

Ospedale Belcolle, Radiotherapy Unit, Viterbo, Italy

11

Azienda ospedaliera Papa Giovanni XXIII, Radiotherapy

Unit, Bergamo, Italy

12

Azienda Ospedaliera S. Gerardo-, Radiotherapy Unit,

Monza, Italy

13

Facoltà di Medicina e Psicologia- Università Sapienza,

Department of Radiation Oncology, Roma, Iceland

14

AOU IRCCS San Martino- IST National Cancer Research

Institute, Radiotherapy Unit, Genova, Italy

15

Veneto Institute of Oncology-IRCCS, Radiotherapy and

Nuclear Medicine Unit, Padova, Italy

16

Ospedale S.M. Goretti, Radiotherapy Unit, Latina, Italy

17

Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza- IRCCS-CSS,

Radiotherapy Unit, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy

18

Florence University, Department of Radiotherapy,

Firenze, Italy

19

'Maggiore della Carità' Hospital, Radiotherapy Unit,

Novara, Italy

20

ASL TO4- General Hospital, Radiotherapy Unit, Ivrea,

Italy

21

Policlinico Universitario S. Orsola Malpighi,

Radiotherapy, Bologna, Italy

Purpose or Objective

Population based electronic health records, provide a

means of obtaining information on patient characteristics

and outcomes that can then be compared with the more

selected populations recruited within randomized

controlled trials. Aim of this analysis was to

retrospectively evaluate the difference in terms of

pathologic complete response (pCR) according to time

elapsed between chemoradiation (CRT) and surgery on a

large unselected real-life dataset of locally advanced

rectal cancer (LARC) patients.

Material and Methods

A multicentre retrospective cohort study of LARC patients

among 21 Italian Radiotherapy Institutions was performed.

3D conformal or intensity-modulated radiation treatment

was required as inclusion criteria. Surgery was performed

according to the principles of total mesorectal excision

(TME). Patients were stratified according to 3 different