Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37736547›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Size and depth of residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer - implications for the development of new imaging modalities for response assessment.

Stefan D van der Stel, Jose G van den Berg, Petur Snaebjornsson, Iris M Seignette, Mark Witteveen, Brechtje A Grotenhuis, Geerard L Beets, Anouk L Post, Theo J M Ruers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Stefan D van der StelFaculty Technische Natuurwetenschappen (TNW), Group Nanobiophysics, Twente University, Enschede, Netherlands.
Jose G van den BergDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Petur SnaebjornssonDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Iris M SeignetteDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mark WitteveenFaculty Technische Natuurwetenschappen (TNW), Group Nanobiophysics, Twente University, Enschede, Netherlands.
Brechtje A GrotenhuisDepartment of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Geerard L BeetsDepartment of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Anouk L PostDepartment of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Theo J M RuersFaculty Technische Natuurwetenschappen (TNW), Group Nanobiophysics, Twente University, Enschede, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the shift towards organ preserving treatment strategies in rectal cancer it has become increasingly important to accurately discriminate between a complete and good clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Standard of care imaging techniques such as CT and MRI are well equipped for initial staging of rectal tumors, but discrimination between a good clinical and complete response remains difficult due to their limited ability to detect small residual vital tumor fragments. To identify new promising imaging techniques that could fill this gap, it is crucial to know the size and invasion depth of residual vital tumor tissue since this determines the requirements with regard to the resolution and imaging depth of potential new optical imaging techniques. We analyzed 198 pathology slides from 30 rectal cancer patients with a Mandard tumor regression grade 2 or 3 after CRT that underwent surgery. For each patient we determined response pattern, size of the largest vital tumor fragment or bulk and the shortest distance from the vital tumor to the luminal surface. The response pattern was shrinkage in 14 patients and fragmentation in 16 patients. For both groups combined, the largest vital tumor fragment per patient was smaller than 1mm for 38% of patients, below 0.2mm for 12% of patients and for one patient as small as 0.06mm. For 29% of patients the vital tumor remnant was present within the first 0.01mm from the luminal surface and for 87% within 0.5mm. Our results explain why it is difficult to differentiate between a good clinical and complete response in rectal cancer patients using endoscopy and MRI, since in many patients submillimeter tumor fragments remain below the luminal surface. To detect residual vital tumor tissue in all patients included in this study a technique with a spatial resolution of 0.06mm and an imaging depth of 8.9mm would have been required. Optical imaging techniques offer the possibility of detecting majority of these cases due to the potential of both high-resolution imaging and enhanced contrast between tissue types. These techniques could thus serve as a complimentary tool to conventional methods for rectal cancer response assessment.

Indexed as

fragmentationneoadjuvantoptical imagingrectal cancerregressiontumor responsewatch-and-wait

Identifiers

PMID37736547
PMCPMC10509550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.