Abstract
Purpose
Perioperative chemotherapy combined with surgical resection represent the gold standard in the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer. The Mandard tumor regression score (TRG) is widely used to evaluate pathological response to neoadjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of TRG in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free (DFS).
Methods
Retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent oncological gastrectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy from January 2007 to December 2019 for gastric adenocarcinoma was performed. Based on their TRG status they were categorized into two groups: good responders (TRG 1–2) and poor responders (TRG 3–5). Subsequent multivariable analyses were conducted.
Results
Seventy-four patients were included, whereby 15 (20.3%) were TRG 1–2. Neoadjuvant regimens for TRG 1–2 vs. TRG 3–5 were similar: MAGIC (53% vs. 39%), FLOT (40% vs. 36%), FOLFOX (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.462). Histologic types according to Lauren classification for TRG 1–2 vs. TRG 3–5 were: 13% vs. 29% intestinal, 53% vs. 44% diffuse and 34% vs. 27% indeterminate (p = 0.326). TRG 1–2 group exhibited significantly less advanced ypT (46% vs. 10%, p = 0.001) and ypN stages (66% vs. 37%, p = 0.008), alongside a diminished recurrence rate (20% vs. 42%, p = 0.111). The 3-year DFS was significantly better in this group (81% vs. 47%, p = 0.041) whereas the disparity in three-year OS (92% vs. 55%, p = 0.054) did not attain statistical significance.
Conclusions
TRG 1–2 was associated with less advanced ypT and ypN stage and better DFS compared to TRG 3–5 patients, without a significant impact on OS.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Gastric and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) adenocarcinoma remain a major cause of cancer-related death, while their incidence has been declining in the last years with several geographical variations [1]. Gastric cancer remains the 5th most common cancer in the world by incidence, accounting for 5.7% of all new cancer diagnoses and affecting over 1,000,000 patients worldwide annually, with a 5-year overall survival rate at 32% [2, 3]. In locally advanced, non-metastatic gastric and EGJ adenocarcinomas (≥ T2 or N+, M0), neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by oncological gastrectomy has become the preferred therapeutic option [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Numerous trials extensively document the benefits of perioperative chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer, primarily aiming at local downstaging and systemic disease control to mitigate the risk of distant metastasis [4,5,6,7]. For instance, findings from the FLOT4 trial demonstrated that perioperative FLOT regimen significantly enhanced overall survival compared to perioperative ECF/ECX, with a median overall survival of 50 months versus 35 months [5].
Beyond chemotherapy, other risk factors, including ethnicity [11], TNM stage [12,13,14], quality of surgical resection and lymphadenectomy [8, 15, 16], tumor localization [17, 18], histological type and genetic features [19, 20] impact on prognosis. Similarly, tumor response to preoperative treatment may influence oncologic outcomes [21]. Although various imaging techniques offer clinical evaluation such as computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), endoscopic ultrasounds (EUS), the most reliable assessment hinges on histopathological analysis of the surgical specimen. Two classification systems are currently used for histopathological evaluation of tumoral response to treatment in gastric cancer: the first described by Mandard in 1994 [22] and the second by Becker in 2003 [23].
This retrospective study was aimed to investigate the prognostic value of the tumor regression grade (TRG) score according to Mandard in terms of probability of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in a series of locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) patients treated with curative intent.
Materials and methods
This is a retrospective monocentric study including consecutive patients with resectable locally advanced gastric or EGJ (Siewert III) adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy between January 2007 and December 2019 at the Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Switzerland. All types of oncologic gastrectomy (total and subtotal) were included, with a D2- lymphadenectomy (spleen and pancreas preserving) [16]. Indications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy at our institution adhere to the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines, which recommend perioperative chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced resectable gastric cancer, specifically cT2 / cT3 or higher and/or N+ [9]. All neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens were included; the most frequent types of chemotherapy used in our institution included EOX (Epirubicin, Oxaliplatin and Capecitabine), ECF (Epirubicin, Cisplatin and continuous 5-Fluorouracil) [4] and FLOT (Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin and Docetaxel) regimens [5, 6]. In order to compare baseline characteristics, clinico-pathological outcomes and long-term survival, patients were separated in two groups according to TRG: good (TRG 1–2) vs. poor (TRG 3–5) responders.
Exclusion criteria were patients who did not received pre-operative chemotherapy and underwent primary surgery, age < 18 and patient’s refusal to participate. Indications for gastrectomy were discussed in the institutional multidisciplinary tumor board.
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed written consent was obtained for all participants and the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Canton de Vaud (CER-VD, Lausanne, Switzerland: #2020 − 01114), with compliance to the Swiss policy of individual data protection.
Data acquisition
Demographics, surgical and oncological data were retrieved from the prospectively maintained institutional database. The following variables were extracted: gender, age, ASA score, BMI, performance status according to WHO [24], histological type according to the WHO [25] and Lauren classification [26], TNM (8th edition TNM/IUCC staging system) [15], perioperative treatment regimen, surgical details, postoperative complications recorded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [27], disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).
Histopathological analysis
Pathologists with expertise in gastrointestinal oncology assessed all surgical specimens Regression score was evaluated for the primary tumor according to the Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) according to Mandard [22]. TRG 1 signifies a complete regression, with absence of residual cancer cells and fibrosis extending through the different layers of gastric wall; TRG 2 is characterized by the presence of rare residual cancer cells scattered through the fibrosis. While fibrosis continued to be dominant, TRG 3 is distinguished by an increase in the amount of residual cancer cells. TRG 4 shows residual cancer cells outgrowing fibrosis, whereas TRG 5 is associated with no histologic response to chemotherapy and absence of regressive changes. Patients with TRG grades 1–2 were considered as good responders, whereas those with TRG 3–5 as poor responders to chemotherapy.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables were presented as mean with standard deviation (SD) or median with interquartile range (IQR) according to their distribution. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies (%) and compared with chi-square test. Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney test were used to compare continuous variables. Multivariate analyses were performed using Cox regression for Disease Free Survival (DSF), incorporating variables with univariate p-values ≤ 0.1. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were used to analyze time-to-event data and to compare survival between good and poor responders. All statistical tests were two-sided and a p-value of < 0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. Statistical analyses were performed with GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA).
Results
One hundred thirty-one patients were screened for this study, 57 were excluded as described in Fig. 1. Finally, 74 patients (80% male) with a median age of 59 years (IQR: 51–71) were included. Median follow-up was 37 months (IQR: 14–60). Fifteen patients (20%) were considered good responders (TRG 1–2) and 59 (80%) poor responders. No differences were observed between the two groups regarding, age, gender, WHO performance status and neoadjuvant regimens. Baseline demographics are described in Table 1. Postoperative complications occurred in 38 patients (51%), 12 (16%) minor complications (Clavien I-II), and 26 (35%) major complications (Clavien IIIa-IV), with no statistical differences between the two groups (p = 0.590). There was no postoperative in-hospital mortality.
Histopathological characteristics
Significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of tumoral staging, as shown in Table 2: ypT staging was lower in TRG 1–2 group (p = 0.001) and, similarly, a higher rate of ypN0 staging was found in the good responder group (66% vs. 22%, p = 0.008). Complete resection margins (R0) were achieved in 81% of patients, with a 100% R0 resection in the pathological responder group (TRG 1–2) and 76% in the TRG 3–5 group (p = 0.001). No differences were found in terms of tumor type according to the WHO and Lauren classifications.
Recurrence and survival
TRG 1–2 patients had similar recurrence rates compared to TRG 3–5 (n = 3, 20% versus n = 25, 42% respectively, p = 0.111). No locoregional recurrence was observed in TRG 1–2 group as showed in Fig. 2. Patients in TRG 3–5 group had a significant higher metastatic risk (46% vs. 20%, p = 0.001). Improved DFS was observed at 36 months for TRG 1–2 patients compared to TRG 3–5 (81% vs. 47%, p = 0.041). No significant difference was observed in 3-year OS (92% vs. 55%, p = 0.054) (Fig. 3). TRG was not found to be an independent predictive factor of DFS after multivariable analysis (p = 0.135), unlike nodal invasion (pN) (p = 0.196) and resection margins (R0) (p = 0.524). Moreover, pT stage was found to be an independent predictive factor (p = 0.024) (Table 3).
Discussion
In this study, although TRG 1–2 was associated with improved disease-free survival compared to TRG 3–5, its role as an independent prognostic factor was not established in the multivariable analysis. This suggests that the ability of TRG to serve as a standalone predictor of patient outcomes, independent of other clinical and pathological variables, is uncertain. The lack of significant findings may be attributed to the influence of additional variables considered in the analysis and the limited sample size of the study population.
As described by Al-Batran et al. [5], only a minority of patients show a good pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In our series, 20.3% of patients presented a TRG 1–2, which is consistent with previously published data, reporting 17 − 28.6% TRG 1–2 rates for gastric adenocarcinoma [28,29,30,31]. The correlation between the Lauren histological type and TRG is still not clear. Some studies [30, 32] found a negative impact of the diffuse type on tumor regression. In this study, we were unable to demonstrate a correlation between Lauren classification and histopathological tumor response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy probably due to the small sample size considered.
Moreover, TRG was not associated with the presence signet ring cells (SRC) in our study. SRC histology has been reported in up to 25% of all gastric adenocarcinomas in the US [20]. They are usually associated with poor survival outcomes due to the high risk of submucosal infiltration and distant micro-metastases. Although signet ring cell adenocarcinomas have been suggested to have worse histopathological response to treatment [33]. Notwithstanding, several studies did not find any correlation between SRC adenocarcinoma and poor histopathological response [29, 31, 34]. Xie et al. data reveal that the oxaliplatin-based regimen failed to improve OS and DFS in patients with signet ring cell adenocarcinoma, indicating that the oxaliplatin-based regimen may not be the optimal choice of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for these patients [34].
One of the most important aims of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy is to provide local downstaging and higher R0 resection rate to obtain a better survival. Evaluation of histopathological response is mandatory to assess the tumor regression grade following the perioperative treatment. Previous studies have noted the importance of histological evaluation of lymph nodes metastasis and pathological response to chemotherapy on the surgical specimen as predictors of survival after chemotherapy plus resection, especially in the MAGIC trial [35]. This study shows the correlation between TRG, ypTNM and resection margins. These results reflect those of Derieux et al.) [36] and Lombardi et al.) [31], who also found that TRG 1–2 patients had a lower ypTN score compared to non-responders. The present study shows also a higher R0 resection in good pathological responders, as well as lower ypT and ypN scores in TRG 1–2 patients. Nevertheless, in this study we did not compare the preoperative clinical staging score (cTNM) with the postoperative post-neoadjuvant treatment staging score (ypTNM). Furthermore, due to the limited number of participants in our study and the wide range of neoadjuvant regimens, no association between preoperative chemotherapy and TRG was found.
A multicentric study has demonstrated how TRG evaluation was a good prognostic predictor for advanced gastric cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy [34]. This study, including 249 patients, showed a significantly better survival outcomes for good histopathological responders. At multivariate survival analysis it was demonstrated that TRG was an independent prognostic factor of poorer OS. These findings were strongly supported by the results of a meta-analysis published by Tomasello et al. in 2017, based on 17 studies Gathering primarily studies on esophageal and junctional tumors [21]. The authors concluded that good pathological response was significantly correlated with an improvement in overall survival.
This study provides insights into the correlation between good histopathological response and survival outcomes. Moreover, our data suggests that TRG may predict the risk of developing distant metastasis. TRG classification could represent a potential predictor of better survival outcomes in case of good pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Wang et al., demonstrate enhanced OS outcomes in patients exhibiting favorable pathological responses, while our study found a correlation between better DFS and TRG 1–2 [37]. Several questions remain to be answered, especially the potential benefit of changing the adjuvant chemotherapy regimen in pathological non-responders (TRG 3–5), following the idea that post-operative treatment should be adapted to histopathological tumor characteristics.
TRG determination serves as a logical complement to traditional pathologic TNM staging. By defining the quantity of residual cancer cells after neoadjuvant therapy, further investigations are necessary to elucidate the quality of neoplastic cells and their behavior, particularly in patients without lymph node metastasis. Identifying factors indicative of a more aggressive phenotype and/or resistance to chemoradiotherapy may enhance the prognostic value of TRG and enable treatment tailoring.
The current study has certain limitations, which are mostly related to its retrospective nature and the small cohort of patients. Small differences between the groups might have passed undetected due to type II error. Furthermore, we need to consider the use of different types of chemotherapy regimens among the years and the inclusion of gastric and esophago-gastric junction adenocarcinoma (Siewert III), which may present several biological differences. A notable limitation of this study is the postoperative discovery of metastatic disease in some patients, which were identified as pM1 during the final histopathological analysis. Although all surgeries were conducted with curative intent under the assumption of no metastatic spread (cM0) based on preoperative evaluations, the unexpected findings of metastases such as peritoneal carcinomatosis at the time of surgical resection highlight a potential confounder in assessing the true prognostic impact of TRG. Another limitation is the absence of data on cancer localization and Borrmann classification. Their absence limits our ability to fully assess the impact of tumor location and morphology on treatment efficacy and tumor regression.
Conclusions
Tumor regression grade evaluation should be done systematically during the histopathological analysis. This European cohort study shows a correlation between good pathological responders to pre-operative chemotherapy (TRG 1–2) and disease-free survival. More research is needed to confirm the suitability of changing the postoperative chemotherapy regimen in poor responders (TRG 3–5).
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM et al (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61(2):69–90. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20107
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I et al (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Cancer J Clin 68(6):394–424
American Cancer Society (2024) Cancer Facts & Fig. 2024. Atlanta: American Cancer Society
Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP (2006) Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 355(1):11–20
Al-Batran S-E, Homann N, Pauligk C et al (2019) Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 393:1948–1957
Al-Batran S-E, Hofheinz RD, Pauligk C et al (2016) Histopathological regression after neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine in patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4-AIO): results from the phase 2 part of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Oncol 17:1697–1708
Ychou M, Boige V, Pignon J-P et al (2011) Perioperative Chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: an FNCLCC and FFCD Multicenter Phase III Trial. JCO 29:1715–1721
Bria E, De Manzoni G, Beghelli S et al (2013) A clinical-biological risk stratification model for resected gastric cancer: prognostic impact of Her2, Fhit, and APC expression status. Ann Oncol 24:693–701
Lordick F, Carneiro F, Cascinu S et al (2022) Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 33(10):1005–1020
Ajani JA, D’Amico TA, Bentrem DJ et al (2022) Gastric Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 20(2):167–192
Yamada T, Yoshikawa T, Taguri M et al (2016) The survival difference between gastric cancer patients from the UK and Japan remains after weighted propensity score analysis considering all background factors. Gastric Cancer 19(2):479–489
Graziosi L, Marino E, Donini A (2019) Survival comparison in gastric cancer patients between 7th and 8th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system: the first western single center experience. Eur J Surg Oncol 45(6):1105–1108
Lu J, Zheng Z-F, Xie J-W et al (2018) Is the 8th Edition of the AJCC TNM staging System sufficiently reasonable for all patients with Noncardia Gastric Cancer? A 12,549-Patient International Database Study. Ann Surg Oncol 25:2002–2011
Lu J, Zheng Z-F, Wang W et al (2019) A novel TNM staging system for gastric cancer based on the metro-ticket paradigm: a comparative study with the AJCC-TNM staging system. Gastric Cancer 22:759–768
Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL et al (2017) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 2017. Springer Publishing
Songun I, Putter H, Kranenbarg EM-K et al (2010) Surgical treatment of gastric cancer: 15-year follow-up results of the randomised nationwide Dutch D1D2 trial. Lancet Oncol 11:439–449
Wang X, Liu F, Li Y, T, et al (2019) Comparison on clinicopathological features, treatments and prognosis between proximal gastric Cancer and distal gastric Cancer: a National Cancer Data Base Analysis. J Cancer 10:3145–3153
Wanebo HJ, Kennedy BJ, Chmiel J et al (1993) Cancer of the stomach. A patient care study by the American College of Surgeons. Ann Surg 218:583–592
The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network (2014) Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature 513:202–209
Taghavi S, Jayarajan SN, Davey A et al (2012) Prognostic significance of Signet Ring gastric Cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:3493–3498
Tomasello G, Petrelli F, Ghidini et al (2017) Tumor regression grade and survival after neoadjuvant treatment in gastro-esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis of 17 published studies. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(9):1607–1616
Mandard AM, Dalibard F, Mandard JC et al (1994) Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations. Cancer 73(11):2680–2686
Becker K, Mueller JD, Schulmacher C et al (2003) Histomorphology and grading of regression in gastric carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 98:1521–1530
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC et al (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649–655
Fléjou JF (2011) Classification OMS 2010 des tumeurs digestives: la quatrième édition [WHO classification of digestive tumors: the fourth edition]. Ann Pathol 31(5 Suppl):S27–S31
Lauren P (1965) The two histological main types of gastric carcinoma: diffuse and so-called intestinal-type carcinoma. An attempt at a histo-clinical classification. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 64:31–49
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of Surgical complications. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Achilli P, Martini PD, Ceresoli M et al (2017) Tumor response evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma: a prospective, multi-center cohort study. J Gastrointest Oncol 8(6):1018–1025
Blackham AU, Greenleaf E, Yamamoto M et al (2016) Tumor regression grade in gastric cancer: predictors and impact on outcome. J Surg Oncol 114:434–439
Schmidt T, Sicic L, Blank S et al (2014) Prognostic value of histopathological regression in 850 neoadjuvantly treated oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas. Br J Cancer 110:1712–1720
Lombardi PM, Mazzola M, Achilli P et al (2021) Prognostic value of pathological tumor regression grade in locally advanced gastric cancer: new perspectives from a single-center experience. J Surg Oncol 123:923–931
Becker K, Langer R, Reim D et al (2011) Significance of histopathological tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric adenocarcinomas: a summary of 480 cases. Ann Surg 253:934–939
Drubay V, Nuytens F, Renaud F et al (2022) Poorly cohesive cells gastric carcinoma including signet-ring cell cancer: updated review of definition, classification and therapeutic management. World J Gastrointest Oncol 14:1406–1428
Xie J-W, Lu J, Xu B et al (2021) Prognostic value of Tumor Regression Grading in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery for gastric Cancer. Front Oncol 11:587856
Smyth EC, Fassan M, Cunningham D et al (2016) Effect of Pathologic Tumor Response and nodal status on Survival in the Medical Research Council adjuvant gastric Infusional Chemotherapy Trial. JCO34:2721–2727
Derieux S, Svrcek M, Manela S et al (2020) Evaluation of the prognostic impact of pathologic response to preoperative chemotherapy using Mandard’s Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) in gastric adenocarcinoma. Dig Liver Dis 52:107–114
Wang Y, Xu H, Hu C et al (2022) Prognostic value and clinicopathological correlation of the tumor regression grade in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. J Gastrointest Oncol 13(3):1046–1057. https://doi.org/10.21037/jgo-22-537
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Lausanne
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Study conception and design were led by F.A., S.M., and H.T.F., with data acquisition handled by F.A., S.M., and L.D. Data analysis and interpretation were conducted by F.A., S.M., and H.T.F. The manuscript was drafted by F.A. and critically revised by S.M., M.S., and H.T.F. F.A. prepared the tables. H.T.F. developed the images. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Canton de Vaud (Switzerland). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This paper has been presented in parts in the 108th Annual Congress of the Swiss Society of Surgery SSC 1st - 3rd June (virtual congress) and in the International ESDE IGCA Joint Congress, November 18th - 20th 2021, Milan, Italy.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Abboretti, F., Mantziari, S., Didisheim, L. et al. Prognostic value of tumor regression grade (TRG) after oncological gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg 409, 199 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03388-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03388-8