ObjectiveTo understand the impact of preoperative nutritional status on the postoperative complications for patients with low/ultra-low rectal cancer undergoing extreme sphincter-preserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy. MethodsThe patients with low/ultra-low rectal cancer who underwent extreme sphincter-preserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy from January 2009 to December 2020 were retrospectively collected using the Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA), and then who were assigned into a nutritional risk group (the score was low than 3 by the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002) and non-nutritional risk group (the score was 3 or more by the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002). The postoperative complications and survival were analyzed for the patients with or without nutritional risk. The postoperative complications were defined as early-term (complications occurring within 30 d after surgery), middle-term (complications occurring during 30–180 d after surgery), and long-term (complications occurring at 180 d and more after surgery). The survival indicators included overall survival and disease-specific survival. ResultsA total of 680 patients who met the inclusion criteria for this study were retrieved from the DACCA database. Among them, there were 500 (73.5%) patients without nutritional risk and 180 (26.5%) patients with nutritional risk. The postoperative follow-up time was 0–152 months (with average 48.9 months). Five hundreds and forty-three survived, including 471 (86.7%) patients with free-tumors survival and 72 (13.3%) patients with tumors survival. There were 137 deaths, including 122 (89.1%) patients with cancer related deaths and 15 (10.9%) patients with non-cancer related deaths. There were 48 (7.1%) cases of early-term postoperative complications, 51 (7.5%) cases of middle-term complications, and 17 (2.5%) cases of long-term complications. There were no statistical differences in the incidence of overall complications between the patients with and without nutritional risk (χ2=3.749, P=0.053; χ2=2.205, P=0.138; χ2=310, P=0.578). The specific complications at different stages after surgery (excluding the anastomotic leakage complications in the patients with nutritional risk was higher in patients without nutritional risk, P=0.034) had no statistical differences between the two groups (P>0.05). The survival curves (overall survival and disease-specific survival) using the Kaplan-Meier method had no statistical differences between the patients with and without nutritional risk (χ2=3.316, P=0.069; χ2=3.712, P=0.054). ConclusionsFrom the analysis results of this study, for the rectal cancer patients who underwent extreme sphincter-preserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy, the patients with preoperative nutritional risk are more prone to anastomotic leakage within 30 d after surgery. Although other postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes have no statistical differences between patients with and without nutritional risk, preoperative nutritional management for them cannot be ignored.
ObjectiveTo summarize the value of imaging in the evaluation of non-surgical therapy for pancreatic cancer.MethodThe relevant literatures about imaging evaluation of non-surgical therapy for pancreatic cancer were collected to make an review.ResultsAt present, most of the imaging evaluation of non-surgical therapy for pancreatic cancer were based on the assessment of morphological characteristics of tumors, such as contrast-enhanced CT and MRI. However, only morphological changes of tumors could not accurately evaluate the response of pancreatic cancer after non-surgical treatment. A few studies had explored the value of functional imaging and artificial intelligence.ConclusionsNon-surgical therapy provides new treatment opportunities for unresectable pancreatic cancer, especially the proposed of neoadjuvant therapy, which provides the possibility of operation for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. More imaging indicators with stronger objectivity, higher accuracy, and wider universality need to be improved and developed in the future.
Neoadjuvant therapy has become the standard treatment for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer, significantly improving long-term survival compared to surgery alone. Neoadjuvant therapy has evolved to include various strategies, such as concurrent chemoradiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or targeted combination therapy. This enriches clinical treatment options and provides a more personalized and scientific treatment approach for patients. This article aims to comprehensively summarize current academic research hot topics, review the rationale and evaluation measures of neoadjuvant therapy, discuss challenges in restaging methods after neoadjuvant therapy, and identify the advantages and disadvantages of various neoadjuvant therapeutic strategies.
With the publication of several phase Ⅱ and Ⅲ clinical studies, the multidisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for early resectable non-small cell lung cancer (rNSCLC) are rapidly evolving. These studies have elucidated the significant effects of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies on improving the prognosis of rNSCLC patients, while also highlighting the urgent need to revise and refine corresponding treatment protocols and clinical pathways. In response, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer has assembled a diverse, multidisciplinary international expert panel to evaluate current clinical trials related to rNSCLC and to provide diagnostic, staging, and treatment recommendations for rNSCLC patients in accordance with the 8th edition of the AJCC-UICC staging system. The consensus recommendations titled "Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments for early stage resectable non-small cell lung cancer: Consensus recommendations from the International Associationfor the Study of Lung Cancer" outline 20 recommendations, 19 of which received over 85% agreement from the experts. The recommendations indicate that early rNSCLC patients should undergo evaluation by a multidisciplinary team and complete necessary imaging studies. For stage Ⅱ patients, consideration should be given to either adjuvant therapy following surgery or direct neoadjuvant/perioperative treatment, while stage Ⅲ patients are recommended to receive neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy followed by surgery. Postoperatively, adjuvant immunotherapy should be considered based on the expression levels of programmed cell death ligand 1, along with testing for other oncogenic driver mutations. For patients with epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations sensitive to tyrosine kinase inhibitors, corresponding adjuvant targeted therapy is recommended. These recommendations aim to provide personalized and precise treatment strategies for early rNSCLC patients to enhance the efficacy of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies. This article provides an in-depth interpretation of these consensus recommendations.
ObjectiveBased on the latest version of the Database from Colorectal Cancer(DACCA), this study analyzed the long-term effect of neoadjuvant therapy combined with intersphincteric resection (ISR) in patients with rectal cancer. MethodsAccording to the established screening criteria, clinical data of 944 patients with rectal cancer admitted from January 2009 to December 2020 were collected from the DACCA updated on March 21, 2022, to explore the influencing factors for overall survival (OS) and disease specific survival (DSS) of rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy combined with ISR, by Cox proportional hazard regression model. Results① The 3-year OS and DSS survival rates of neoadjuvant therapy combined with ISR for rectal cancer were 89.2% and 90.4%, respectively, and the 5-year OS and DSS survival rates were 83.9% and 85.4%, respectively. ② For different ISR surgical methods and neoadjuvant therapy plans, there were no significant differences in OS and DSS (P>0.05), but there were significant differences in OS and DSS among different ypTNM stage groups (P<0.001), patients with ypTNM 0–Ⅱ had better OS and DSS. ③ BMI, ypTNM stage and R0 resection were influencing factors for OS and DSS (P<0.05). ④ The overall incidence of postoperative complications was low, including 6.4% (60/944) within 30 days, 7.5% (71/944) within half a year and 3.3% (31/944) over half a year after operation. ConclusionsIn the comprehensive treatment of patients with low/ultra-low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy combined with ISR can achieve relatively stable and good long-term oncological efficacy, and the incidence of short-term postoperative complications is not high, which is one of the options.
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Although surgery can cure some early-stage resectable patients, the postoperative recurrence rate remains as high as 30%-55%. Perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, which includes "neoadjuvant" therapy before surgery and "adjuvant" therapy after surgery, has significantly improved survival outcomes in resectable NSCLC patients. Large clinical studies, such as CheckMate 816, have demonstrated the superiority of neoadjuvant ICIs combined with chemotherapy in increasing the pathological complete response rate (pCR) and prolonging event-free survival (EFS). However, even with these advanced treatments, some patients do not achieve long-term benefits and experience early recurrence. This paper reviews the latest research progress of perioperative ICIs in NSCLC treatment, particularly the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in improving pCR and extending EFS. It further explores the recurrence patterns, resistance mechanisms, and potential biomarkers in NSCLC patients after neoadjuvant immunotherapy. By integrating basic research and clinical data, we analyze the mechanisms of early recurrence following perioperative immunotherapy and discuss future research directions and therapeutic strategies, providing new insights into precision treatment and recurrence prevention for NSCLC patients.
Surgery following neoadjuvant therapy has become the standard treatment for middle- and late-stage resectable esophageal cancer. However, treatment modalities such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery cause physical and psychological harm to patients, reducing their quality of life. Prehabilitation, as an emerging preoperative management strategy, integrates various measures, including exercise training, nutritional support, and psychological support. Its aim is to enhance patients’ physiological and psychological reserves prior to surgery, bolster their tolerance to surgical stress, and thus accelerate the postoperative recovery process. This approach is a key manifestation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) concept. This article reviews prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer patients from 3 aspects: intervention timing, intervention content, and barriers, with the aim of providing a reference for promoting early recovery in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery.
ObjectiveTo analyze the factors influencing axillary pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) and to provide the possibility of exempting axillary surgery for patients with better pathological efficacy of primary breast lesions after NAT. MethodsAccording to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the patients with breast cancer admitted to the Department of Breast Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were diagnosed with ipsilateral axillary lymph node metastasis of breast cancer and the NAT cycle was completed according to standards. All patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after NAT. The therapeutic effect of primary breast lesions was evaluated by Miller-Payne (MP) grading system. The axillary pCR was judged according to whether there was residual positive axillary lymph nodes after ALND. The unvariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to analyze the risk factors affecting the axillary pCR. At the same time, the possibility of exempting axillary surgery after NAT in the MP grade 5 or in whom without ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was evaluated. The ALND was considered to exempt when the negative predictive value was 90% or more and false negative <10% or almost same. ResultsA total of 111 eligible patients with breast cancer were gathered in the study, 64 of whom with axillary pCR. There were 43 patients of MP grade 5 without DCIS after NAT, 41 of whom were axillary pCR. The univariate analysis results showed that the estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor statuses, molecular type, NAT regimen, and MP grade were associated with the axillary pCR after NAT, then the logistic regression multivariate analysis results showed that the MP grade ≤3 and MP grade 4 decreased the probability of axillary pCR as compared with the MP grade 5 [OR=0.105, 95%CI (0.028, 0.391), P=0.001; OR=0.045, 95%CI (0.012, 0.172), P<0.001]. There were 51 patients of MP grade 5 after NAT, 46 of whom were axillary pCR. The negative predictive value and the false negative rate of MP grade 5 on predicting the postoperative residual axillary lymph nodes were 90.2% [95%CI (81.7%, 98.6%)] and 10.6% [95%CI (1.5%, 19.8%)], respectively, which of MP grade 5 without DCIS were 95.3% [95%CI (88.8%, 101.9%)] and 4.3% [95%CI (–1.7%, 10.2%)] , respectively. ConclusionsThe probability of axillary pCR for the patient with higher MP grade of breast primary after NAT is higher. It is probable of exempting axillary surgery when MP grade is 5 after NAT.
ObjectiveTo analyze the impact of neoadjuvant regimens on prognosis in patients with rectal cancer in the current version of the Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA) database. MethodsPatient information was extracted from the updated version of DACCA on November 24, 2022 according to the established screening criteria, and the following items were analyzed: gender, age, body mass index (BMI), marriage, economic conditions, degree of differentiation, neoadjuvant treatment regimen, and pTNM staging. According to the neoadjuvant treatment regimen, the patients were divided into three groups: chemotherapy group, chemotherapy combined radiotherapy group, and chemotherapy combined targeted therapy group, and the overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) of patients in the three groups were analyzed, and the influencing factors of OS and DSS were analyzed by univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. ResultsAccording to the screening criteria, 1 716 valid data were obtained from the DACCA database, of which 954 (55.6%) were in the chemotherapy group, 332 (19.3%) in the chemotherapy combined radiotherapy group, and 430 (25.1%) in the chemotherapy combined targeted therapy group. The differences in the Kaplan-Merier survival curves of patients with different neoadjuvant regimens for OS and DSS in the three groups were statistically significant (χ2=142.142, P＜0.001; χ2=129.528, P＜0.001). There were significant differences in OS rate and DSS rate between the three groups in 3 years and 5 years (P<0.001). Further comparison of different neoadjuvant therapy groups showed that the OS of the chemotherapy combined targeted therapy group was slightly better than that of the chemotherapy group in 3 years, however, OS and DSS in 5 years were slightly worse than those the chemotherapy group, but the difference were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The OS and DSS of the chemotherapy group and the chemotherapy combined targeted therapy group were better than those of the chemotherapy combined radiotherapy group in 3 years and 5 years, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.01). The results of multivariate analysis showed that patients’ age, economic conditions, degree of tumor differentiation, new auxiliary scheme and pTNM staging were the influencing factors of OS and DSS. ConclusionNeoadjuvant treatment regimen will affect the long-term survival prognosis of rectal cancer patients.
ObjectiveTo analyze the neoadjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer in this center in the background of real world data by studying Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA) in West China Hospital of Sichuan University.MethodsData was selected from DACCA who was updated on August 15, 2019. After deleting duplicate value, patients whose tumor location and tumor pathologic characteristic showed colon or rectum, as well as adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, and signet ring cell carcinoma were enrolled.ResultsThere were 2 783, 2 789, 2 790, 2 811, 4 148,3 824, 4 191, 3 676, 4 090, and 499 valid data of T, N, and M stages, clinical stages, tumor site, distance from tumor to anal dentate line, tumor pathologic characteristics, degree of tumor differentiation, neoadjuvant therapy, and compliance, respectively. There were 1 839 lines that " nature of the tumor pathology” was not empty and neoadjuvant scheme for the pure chemotherapy, radiotherapy alone or radiation, and chemotherapy, including 50 lines of signet ring cell carcinoma (2.7%), 299 lines of mucous adenocarcinoma (16.3%), 1 490 lines of adenocarcinoma (81.0%), various kinds of pathology in selection of neoadjuvant therapy difference was statistically significant (χ2=9.138, P=0.041). Except for the data lines with null value in the column of " operation date”, there were 2 234 (82.1%) and 486 (17.9%) effective data lines of " recommended” and " not recommended” for the use of neoadjuvant therapy, respectively. In the years with a large amount of data, among the patients who completed neoadjuvant therapy, the proportion of patients meeting the recommended indications was 27.4%–67.6%, with an average of 47.4%. Patients who did not meet the recommended indications but were recommended (off-label use) accounted for 7.3%–70.0%, with an average of 39.8%. According to regression analysis, the proportion in line with the recommendation (\begin{document}$\hat y $\end{document}=–0.032 5x+66.003 2, P=0.020) varies with the year, and the overall trend shows a gradual decline. The proportion of the use of super indications (\begin{document}$\hat y $\end{document}=–0.054 5x+110.174 6, P=0.002) changed with the year, and the overall trend showed a decline. A total of 1 161 valid data with non-null values of " eoadjuvant therapy regimen” and " recommended or not recommended” showed statistically significant difference in the use rate of neoadjuvant therapy among patients with different recommendation groups (χ2=9.244, P=0.002). " Patient compliance” was shown as " active cooperation” and " passive acceptance”, and " neoadjuvant therapy” was shown as " radiotherapy alone”" chemotherapy alone”, and " chemoradiotherapy” were 470 lines. There was no statistically significant difference in neoadjuvant therapy between patients receiving active and passive treatment (χ2=0.537, P=0.841). The effective data of clinical remission degree meeting the research conditions were 388 lines, including 121 lines of complete response (31.2%), 180 lines of partial response (46.4%), 79 lines of stable disease (20.4%), and 8 lines of progressive disease (2.1%). There was no statistically significant difference in clinical response degree among patients with different neoadjuvant therapy (H=0.435, P=0.783). There were 346 lines with effective data of pathologic tumor regression grade (TRG) meeting the study conditions, including 47 lines with TRG0 (13.6%), 39 lines with TRG1 (11.3%), 180 lines with TRG2 (52.0%), and 80 lines with TRG3 (23.1%). There was no statistical difference in the degree of TRG among patients with different neoadjuvant therapy (H=1.816, P=0.518).ConclusionsThe real world study reflects that in the western regional medical center, the demand for neoadjuvant therapy among the patients with colorectal cancer covered is huge. Although the implementation of neoadjuvant therapy is greatly influenced by the doctor’s recommendation behavior, the selection and recommendation of neoadjuvant therapy according to some specific clinical application guidelines are not fully met. The impact of more behavioral factors requires further in-depth analysis and research.