It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly used to control local tumor spread and micrometastasis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Pathology assessments of treatment effects might predict patient outcomes after surgery. However, there are conflicting reports regarding the reproducibility and prognostic performance of commonly used tumor regression grading systems, namely College of American Pathologists (CAP) and Evans’ grading system. Further, the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center group (MDA) and the Japan Pancreas Society (JPS) have introduced other grading systems, while we recently proposed a new, simple grading system based on the area of residual tumor (ART). Herein, we aimed to assess and compare the reproducibility and prognostic performance of the modified ART grading system with those of the four grading systems using a multicenter cohort. The study cohort consisted of 97 patients with PDAC who had undergone post-neoadjuvant pancreatectomy at four hospitals. All patients were treated with gemcitabine and S-1 (GS)-based chemotherapies with/without radiation. Two pathologists individually evaluated tumor regression in accordance with the CAP, Evans’, JPS, MDA and ART grading systems, and interobserver concordance was compared between the five systems. The ART grading system was a 5-tiered system based on a number of 40× microscopic fields equivalent to the surface area of the largest ART. Furthermore, the final grades, which were either the concordant grades of the two observers or the majority grades, including those given by the third observer, were correlated with patient outcomes in each system. The interobserver concordance (kappa value) for Evans’, CAP, MDA, JPS and ART grading systems were 0.34, 0.50, 0.65, 0.33, and 0.60, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that higher ART grades were significantly associated with shorter overall survival (p = 0.001) and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.005), while the other grading systems did not show significant association with patient outcomes. The present study revealed that the ART grading system that was designed to be simple and more objective has achieved high concordance and showed a prognostic value; thus it may be most practical for assessing tumor regression in post-neoadjuvant resections for PDAC.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Kagawa University, Oncology Pathology, Department of Pathology and Host-Defense, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa, Japan (GRID:grid.258331.e) (ISNI:0000 0000 8662 309X); Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital and Institute of Gerontology, Department of Pathology, Tokyo, Japan (GRID:grid.417092.9)
2 National Cancer Center Hospital East, Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Chiba, Japan (GRID:grid.497282.2)
3 Kagawa University, Oncology Pathology, Department of Pathology and Host-Defense, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa, Japan (GRID:grid.258331.e) (ISNI:0000 0000 8662 309X)
4 Juntendo University, School of Medicine, Department of Human Pathology, Tokyo, Japan (GRID:grid.258269.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1762 2738)
5 Tokai University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Kanagawa, Japan (GRID:grid.265061.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 1516 6626)
6 Tokyo Medical University, Department of Anatomic Pathology, Tokyo, Japan (GRID:grid.410793.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 0663 3325)
7 Tokyo Medical University, Department of Gastrointestinal and Pediatric Surgery, Tokyo, Japan (GRID:grid.410793.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 0663 3325)
8 Tokai University School of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kanagawa, Japan (GRID:grid.265061.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 1516 6626)
9 Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital and Institute of Gerontology, Department of Pathology, Tokyo, Japan (GRID:grid.417092.9)
10 National Cancer Center Hospital East, Division of Pathology, Research Center for Innovative Oncology, Kashiwa-shi, Japan (GRID:grid.497282.2)
11 Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Department of Pathology, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.32224.35) (ISNI:0000 0004 0386 9924)