China is a country with a high incidence of esophageal cancer. Most patients are already in the locally advanced stage when first diagnosed. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery has become the standard treatment mode for them. Closely related to prognosis, the evaluation of tumor response is essential. Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors is the gold standard to evaluate tumor response, but the lesions must meet the measurement standards. Tumor regression grading (TRG) systems are designed to classify regressive changes after neoadjuvant treatment based on histopathological results to reveal prognostic information. Concentrating on pathologic assessment of esophageal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy, this article reviews histopathological changes, commonly used TRG systems and current debate.
ObjectiveTo describe the constructive process of neoadjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer part in the West China Colorectal Cancer Database (DACCA).MethodWe used the form of text description.ResultsThe specific concept of neoadjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer including neoadjuvant treatment therapies, compliance of patients with neoadjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy intensity scheme, the CEA value of patients during neoadjuvant therapy, changes of symptoms, changes of primary tumor size in colorectal cancer, and TRG grading of the DACCA in the West China Hospital were defined. Then the neoadjuvant therapies were detailed for their definition, label, structure, error correction, and update.ConclusionThrough detailed description and specification of neoadjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer in DACCA in West China Hospital, it can provide a reference for the standardized treatment of colorectal cancer and also provide experiences for the peers who wish to build a colorectal cancer database.
ObjectiveTo analyze the details and efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer in the current version of Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA).MethodsThe DACCA version selected for this data analysis was the updated version on July 28th, 2020. The data items included “planned strategy of neoadjuvant therapy” “compliance of neoadjuvant therapy”, and “cycles of neoadjuvant therapy”. Item of “planned strategy of neoadjuvant therapy” included “accuracy of neoadjuvant therapy” and “once included in researches”. Item of “the intensity of neoadjuvant therapy” included “chemotherapy” “cycles of neoadjuvant therapy” “targeted drugs”, and “neoadjuvant radiotherapy”. Item of “effect of neoadjuvant therapy” included CEA value of “pre-neoadjuvant therapy” and “post-neoadjuvant therapy”“variation of tumor markers” “variation of symptom” “variation of gross” “variation of radiography”, and tumor regression grade (TRG). The selected data items were statistically analyzed.ResultsThe total number of medical records (data rows) that met the criteria was 7 513, including 2 539 (33.8%) valid data on the “accuracy of neoadjuvant therapy”, 498 (6.6%) valid data on “once included in researches”, 637 (8.5%) valid data on the “compliance of neoadjuvant therapy”, 2 077 (27.6%) valid data on “neoadjuvant chemotherapy”, 614 (8.2%) valid data on “cycles of neoadjuvant therapy”, 455 (6.1%) valid data on “targeted drugs”, 135 (1.8%) valid data on “neoadjuvant radiotherapy”, 5 022 (66.8%) valid data on “pre-neoadjuvant therapy CEA value”, 818 (10.9%) valid data on “post-neoadjuvant therapy CEA value ”, 614 (8.2%) valid data on “variation of tumor marker”, 464 (6.2%) valid data on “variation of symptom”, 478 (6.4%) valid data on “variation of gross”, 492 (6.5%) valid data on “variation of radiography”, and 459 (6.1%) valid data on TRG. During the correlation analysis, it appeared that “variation of tumor marker” and “variation of gross” (χ2=6.26, P=0.02), “variation of symptom” and “variation of gross”, “radiography” and TRG (χ2=53.71, P<0.01; χ2=38.41, P<0.01; χ2=8.68, P<0.01), “variation of gross” and “variation of radiography”, and TRG (χ2=44.41, P<0.01; χ2=100.37, P<0.01), “variation of radiography” and TRG (χ2=31.52, P<0.01) were related with each other.ConclusionsThe protocol choosing of neoadjuvant therapy has a room for further research and DACCA can provide data support for those who is willing to perform neoadjuvant therapy. The efficacy indicators of neoadjuvant therapy have association with each other, the better understand of it will provide more valuable information for the establishment of therapeutic prediction model.
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.
Bladder cancer is one of the most common cancers of the urinary system. Baesd on the involvement of the blandder muscle or not, bladder cancer can be generally classified into muscule-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and non-MIBC. Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy is the standard treament recommended by current guidelines for MIBC. Based on the good efficacy of immunocheckpoint inhibitors in advanced bladder cancer. More and more studies have explored the safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in MIBC neoadjuvant therapy, and analyzed biomarkers to explore the benefit groups. This article reviews the latest progress of various neoadjuvant immunomonotherapy in MIBC, and prospect the future direction of development.
Esophageal cancer is one of the malignant tumors that poses a threat to human health, with both high incidence and malignancy. Currently, surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer; however, the long-term prognosis remains unsatisfactory. In recent years, inhibitors of programmed death protein-1 (PD-1) and its ligand (programmed death ligand-1, PD-L1) have achieved breakthrough progress in other solid tumors, and research on esophageal cancer is gradually being conducted. With the demonstration of good efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the first-line and second-line treatment of advanced unresectable esophageal cancer, their incorporation into neoadjuvant treatment regimens has become a hot topic. Therefore, this article reviews the mechanism of action of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and their application in the neoadjuvant treatment of esophageal cancer.
The incidence of esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma is gradually increasing, and gastrointestinal surgery and thoracic surgery are paying more and more attention to its surgical treatment. “Chinese expert consensus on the surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction (2018 edition)” discussed the core issues in the field of surgical treatment such as definition, classification, surgical approach, lymphadenectomy, digestive tract reconstruction, and neoadjuvant therapy for esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, and gave recommendations. However, there is still some controversy about these issues. The author discussed the consensus and controversial issues relevant to esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma and related research progress in recent years.
ObjectiveTo analyze the relationship between occupational type of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and decision-making and curative effect of neoadjuvant therapy in the current version of the Database from Colorectal Cancer (DACCA). MethodsThe eligible CRC patients were collected from June 29, 2022 updated DACCA according to the screening criteria, in which the data items analyzed included: gender, age, BMI, blood type, marriage, occupation, neoadjuvant therapy, symptomatic changes, imaging changes, and tumor regression grade (TRG), and the occupations were classified into the mental labour group, physical labour group, and the unemployed and resident groups according to the type of labour, then compared the decision-making and curative effect of neoadjuvant therapy among the 3 groups. ResultsA total of 2 415 eligible data were screened, of which 1 160 (48.0%) were the most in the manual labour group, followed by 877 (36.3%) in the unemployed and resident group, and finally 378 (15.7%) in the mental labour group. The proportion of those who did not use targeted drugs was higher in both patients ≤60 years old and >60 years old [75.6% (958/1 267) vs. 82.5% (947/1 148)], with both differences being statistically significant (P=0.004 and P=0.019), and among patients >60 years old, the different occupational types were associated with symptomatic changes and imaging changes after neoadjuvant therapy, with the highest number of both changes to partial remission [71.5% (161/225) vs. 66.7% (148/222)], both differences being statistically significant (P=0.001 and P=0.017). ConclusionThe analysis results of DACCA data reveal that the occupational type of CRC patients was associated with the choice of neoadjuvant therapy, and that different occupational types were associated with changes in curative effect before and after neoadjuvant therapy in CRC patients >60 years old, which needs to be further analysis for the reasons.
There is still a lack of experience in the perioperative strategy for esophageal cancer patients in China during the epidemic of COVID-19. In December 2022, a 59-year-old male patient with esophageal cancer was admitted to our department. He received 2 cycles of neoadjuvant therapy before surgery, and developed COVID-19 perioperatively. After treatment, the infection symptoms of the patient were improved, and the postoperative recovery was satisfactory.
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.