Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Sep 15, 2022; 14(9): 1711-1726
Published online Sep 15, 2022. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i9.1711
Published online Sep 15, 2022. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v14.i9.1711
Table 1 The clinical characteristics between the two groups
| CC group (n = 129) | non-CC group (n = 136) | P value | |
| Gender, n (%) | 0.177 | ||
| Male | 84 (65.1) | 99 (72.8) | |
| Female | 45 (34.9) | 37 (27.2) | |
| Age, yr | 0.446 | ||
| mean (SD) | 57.5 (11.4) | 58.5 (9.8) | |
| Primary location, n (%) | 0.812 | ||
| Up | 4 (3.1) | 6 (4.4) | |
| Middle | 60 (46.5) | 65 (47.8) | |
| Low | 65 (50.4) | 65 (47.8) | |
| Pathology, n (%) | 0.996 | ||
| Well differentiated | 6 (4.7) | 6 (4.4) | |
| Moderately differentiated | 95 (73.6) | 102 (75.0) | |
| Poorly differentiated | 16 (12.4) | 16 (11.8) | |
| Others | 12 (9.3) | 12 (8.8) | |
| CEA, n (%) | 0.307 | ||
| Normal | 67 (51.9) | 64 (47.1) | |
| Unnormal | 49 (38.0) | 63 (46.3) | |
| Unidentified | 13 (10.1) | 9 (6.6) | |
| T stage, n (%) | 0.650 | ||
| < T3c | 49 (38.0) | 48 (35.3) | |
| > T3b | 80 (62.0) | 88 (64.7) | |
| N stage, n (%) | 0.190 | ||
| N0 | 12 (9.3) | 7 (5.1) | |
| N+ | 117 (90.7) | 129 (94.9) | |
| Tumor length (mm) | 0.916 | ||
| mean (SD) | 49.0 (12.7) | 49.1 (13.7) | |
| Tumor thickness (mm) | 0.838 | ||
| mean (SD) | 16.4 (5.0) | 16.5 (7.2) | |
| MRF, n (%) | 0.501 | ||
| Negative | 31 (24.0) | 28 (20.6) | |
| Positive | 98 (76.0) | 108 (79.4) | |
| EMVI, n (%) | 0.565 | ||
| Negative | 44 (34.1) | 51 (37.5) | |
| Positive | 85 (65.9) | 85 (62.5) | |
| Numbers of high-risk factor, n (%) | 0.557 | ||
| 1 | 38 (29.5) | 34 (25.0) | |
| 2 | 48 (37.2) | 59 (43.4) | |
| 3 | 43 (33.3) | 43 (31.6) | |
| Interval time (d) | 0.040 | ||
| mean (SD) | 71.7 (21.7) | 76.8 (18.5) |
Table 2 The clinical parameters between the two groups after propensity score match and inverse probability of treatment weighting
| PSM | IPTW | |||||
| non-CC group (n = 105) | CC-group (n = 105) | P value | non-CC group (n = 130) | CC-group (n = 135) | P value | |
| Gender, n (%) | 0.762 | 0.970 | ||||
| Male | 75 (71.4) | 73 (69.5) | 89.4 (68.5) | 92.6 (68.7) | ||
| Female | 30 (28.6) | 32 (30.5) | 41.1 (31.5) | 42.2 (31.3) | ||
| Age | 0.692 | 0.993 | ||||
| mean (SD) | 57.7 (11.8) | 58.3 (9.7) | 58.2 (11.2) | 58.2 (9.7) | ||
| Primary location, n (%) | 0.849 | 0.996 | ||||
| Up | 3 (2.9) | 2 (1.9) | 4.9 (3.8) | 4.9 (3.7) | ||
| Middle | 52 (49.5) | 50 (47.6) | 61.0 (46.7) | 63.8 (47.3) | ||
| Low | 50 (47.6) | 53 (50.5) | 64.6 (49.5) | 66.1 (49.0) | ||
| Pathology, n (%) | 0.903 | 0.999 | ||||
| Well-differentiated | 5 (4.8) | 5 (4.8) | 6.3 (4.9) | 6.6 (4.9) | ||
| Moderately-differentiated | 79 (75.2) | 75 (71.4) | 94.0 (72.0) | 97.9 (72.6) | ||
| Poorly-differentiated | 12 (11.4) | 13 (12.4) | 16.6 (12.7) | 17.0 (12.6) | ||
| Others | 9 (8.6) | 12 (11.4) | 13.6 (10.4) | 13.3 (9.9) | ||
| CEA, n (%) | 0.428 | 0.997 | ||||
| Normal | 51 (48.6) | 58 (55.2) | 64.1 (49.1) | 66.8 (49.5) | ||
| Unnormal | 45 (42.9) | 42 (40.0) | 55.2 (42.3) | 56.7 (42.1) | ||
| unidentified | 9 (8.6) | 5 (4.8) | 11.2 (8.6) | 11.3 (8.4) | ||
| T stage, n (%) | 0.568 | 0.992 | ||||
| < T3c | 41 (39.0) | 37 (35.2) | 48.0 (36.8) | 49.7 (36.9) | ||
| > T3b | 64 (61.0) | 68 (64.8) | 82.5 (63.2) | 85.1 (63.1) | ||
| N stage, n (%) | 0.097 | 0.176 | ||||
| N0 | 10 (9.5) | 4 (3.8) | 12.1 (9.3) | 6.7 (5.0) | ||
| N+ | 95 (90.5) | 101 (96.2) | 118.4 (90.7) | 128.1 (95.0) | ||
| Tumor length (mm) | 0.916 | 0.983 | ||||
| mean (SD) | 48.6 (13.0) | 48.4 (13.2) | 48.9 (12.5) | 48.9 (13.5) | ||
| Tumor thickness (mm) | 0.484 | 0.999 | ||||
| mean (SD) | 16.6 (5.0) | 16.0 (7.0) | 16.4 (4.9) | 16.4 (7.2) | ||
| MRF, n (%) | > 0.99 | 0.865 | ||||
| Negative | 23 (21.9) | 23 (21.9) | 29.7 (22.8) | 29.5 (21.9) | ||
| Positive | 82 (78.1) | 82 (78.1) | 100.7 (77.2) | 105.3 (78.1) | ||
| EMVI, n (%) | 0.771 | 0.998 | ||||
| Negative | 35 (33.3) | 37 (35.2) | 46.4 (35.6) | 48.0 (35.6) | ||
| Positive | 70 (66.7) | 68 (64.8) | 84.0 (64.4) | 86.8 (64.4) | ||
| Numbers of high-risk factor, n (%) | 0.510 | 0.883 | ||||
| 1 | 31 (29.5) | 26 (24.8) | 36.5 (28.0) | 35.1 (26.0) | ||
| 2 | 37 (35.2) | 45 (42.9) | 51.2 (39.2) | 56.9 (42.2) | ||
| 3 | 37 (35.2) | 34 (32.4) | 42.8 (32.8) | 42.8 (31.7) | ||
| Interval time (d) | 0.659 | 0.819 | ||||
| mean (SD) | 74.4 (20.0) | 75.6 (18.4) | 75.5 (25.1) | 74.8 (17.7) | ||
Table 3 Details of surgical and pathological results in the original samples before matching and after propensity score match in the two groups
| Original samples | PSM | |||||
| non-CC group (n = 124) | CC group (n = 126) | P value | non-CC group (n = 100) | CC group (n = 96) | P value | |
| Interval time (d) | 0.015 | 0.410 | ||||
| mean (SD) | 71.7 (21.9) | 77.9 (18.6) | 74.5 (20.1) | 76.8 (18.7) | ||
| Surgical method, n (%) | 0.232 | 0.990 | ||||
| APR | 42 (33.9) | 31 (24.6) | 30 (30.0) | 29 (30.2) | ||
| LAR | 77 (62.1) | 91 (72.2) | 66 (66.0) | 63 (65.6) | ||
| Hartmann | 5 (4.0) | 4 (3.2) | 4 (4.0) | 4 (4.2) | ||
| Surgery time (h) | 0.684 | 0.953 | ||||
| mean (SD) | 3.0 (1.3) | 3.1 (1.4) | 3.0 (1.3) | 3.0 (1.4) | ||
| Blood loss (mL) | 0.345 | 0.407 | ||||
| mean (SD) | 75.4 (51.4) | 105.4 (145.5) | 74.5 (47.8) | 99.3 (105.0) | ||
| R0, n (%) | 123 (99.2) | 124 (98.4) | 0.571 | 99 (99.0) | 94 (97.9) | 0.537 |
| Numbers of dissected lymph nodes | 0.194 | 0.502 | ||||
| mean (SD) | 9.1 (4.9) | 8.3 (5.0) | 9 (4.8) | 8.54 (5.0) | ||
| pT satge, n (%) | 0.400 | 0.136 | ||||
| T0 | 21 (16.9) | 31 (24.6) | 17 (17.0) | 28 (29.2) | ||
| T1 | 6 (4.8) | 10 (7.0) | 5 (5.0) | 9 (9.4) | ||
| T2 | 41 (33.1) | 34 (27.0) | 32 (32.0) | 28 (29.2) | ||
| T3 | 54 (43.5) | 50 (39.7) | 44 (44.0) | 30 (31.2) | ||
| T4 | 2 (1.6) | 1 (0.8) | 2 (2.0) | 1 (1.0) | ||
| pN stage, n (%) | 0.541 | 0.712 | ||||
| N0 | 90 (72.6) | 99 (78.6) | 72 (72.0) | 74 (77.1) | ||
| N1 | 26 (21.0) | 21 (16.7) | 22 (22.0) | 17 (17.7) | ||
| N2 | 8 (6.5) | 6 (4.8) | 6 (6.0) | 5 (5.2) | ||
| TRG, n (%) | 0.123 | 0.015 | ||||
| 0 | 21 (16.9) | 31 (24.6) | 17 (17.0) | 28 (29.1) | ||
| 1 | 43 (34.7) | 51 (40.5) | 33 (33.0) | 41 (42.7) | ||
| 2 | 59 (47.6) | 42 (33.3) | 49 (49.0) | 26 (27.1) | 0.176 | |
| 3 | 1 (0.8) | 2 (1.6) | 1 (1.0) | 1 (1.1) | ||
| pT0-2N0, n (%) | 57 (46.0) | 66 (52.4) | 0.311 | 46 (46.0) | 57 (59.4) | 0.061 |
| pCR, n (%) | 18 (14.5) | 27 (21.4) | 0.155 | 14 (14.0) | 24 (25.0) | 0.051 |
Table 4 The complete response rate and univariate regression of consolidation chemotherapy in the original samples before matching, after propensity score match and inverse probability of treatment weighting in the two groups
| CR | Univariate regression | ||||
| non-CC group, n (%) | CC group, n (%) | P value | OR (95%CI) | P value | |
| Original samples | 21 (16.3) | 33 (24.3) | 0.107 | 1.648 (0.895-3.033) | 0.109 |
| PSM | 17 (16.2) | 29 (27.6) | 0.045 | 1.975 (1.008-3.871) | 0.047 |
| IPTW | 21 (16.3) | 35 (25.9) | 0.045 | 1.185 (1.008-3.395) | 0.047 |
Table 5 Toxicities during neoadjuvant treatment in the two groups
| non-CC group (n = 129), n (%) | CC group (n = 136), n (%) | |||||||
| Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4-5 | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4-5 | |
| Total | 59 (45.7) | 64 (49.6) | 5 (3.9) | 0 | 66 (48.5) | 63 (46.3) | 4 (2.9) | 0 |
| Leukopenia | 47 (36.4) | 29 (22.5) | 2 (1.6) | 0 | 51 (37.5) | 27 (19.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Neutropenia | 22 (17.1) | 9 (7.0) | 0 | 0 | 22 (16.2) | 9 (6.6) | 0 | 0 |
| Anemia | 5 (3.9) | 6 (4.7) | 2 (1.6) | 0 | 14 (10.3) | 5 (3.7) | 0 | 0 |
| Thrombocytopenia | 9 (7.0) | 0 | 1 (0.8) | 0 | 5 (3.7) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aminotransferase increased | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.8) | 0 | 0 | 6 (4.4) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bilirubin increased | 19 (14.7) | 2 (3.1) | 0 | 0 | 18 (13.2) | 2 (1.5) | 1 (0.7) | 0 |
| Nausea | 39 (30.2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 (22.1) | 1 (0.7) | 0 | 0 |
| Fatigue | 58 (45.0) | 3 (2.3) | 0 | 0 | 66 (44.9) | 2 (1.5) | 0 | 0 |
| Proctitis/diarrhea | 66 (51.2) | 36 (27.9) | 1 (0.8) | 0 | 66 (48.5) | 39 (28.7) | 2 (1.5) | 0 |
| Cystitis | 38 (29.5) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 42 (30.9) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Radiodermatitis | 75 (58.1) | 6 (4.7) | 0 | 0 | 70 (51.5) | 3 (2.2) | 0 | 0 |
- Citation: Sheng XQ, Wang HZ, Li S, Zhang YZ, Geng JH, Zhu XG, Quan JZ, Li YH, Cai Y, Wang WH. Consolidation chemotherapy with capecitabine after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in high-risk patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: Propensity score study. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2022; 14(9): 1711-1726
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v14/i9/1711.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v14.i9.1711