Chemoradiation instead of surgery to treat mid and low rectal tumors: is it safe?

Surgical margins in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: A narrative review

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), a prevalent and frequently recurring malignancy, often necessitates surgical intervention. The surgical margin (SM) plays a pivotal role in determining the postoperative treatment strategy and prognostic evaluation of HNSCC. Nonetheless, the process of clinical appraisal and assessment of the SMs remains a complex and indeterminate endeavor, thereby leading to potential difficulties for surgeons in defining the extent of resection. In this regard, we undertake a comprehensive review of the suggested surgical distance in varying circumstances, diverse methods of margin evaluation, and the delicate balance that must be maintained between tissue resection and preservation in head and neck surgical procedures. This review is intended to provide surgeons with pragmatic guidance in selecting the most suitable resection techniques, and in improving patients' quality of life by achieving optimal functional and aesthetic restoration.

Personalized medicine for locally advanced rectal cancer: five years of complete clinical response after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy-a case report with a literature review

We present a case report of a 73-year-old male patient with a complete clinical response following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy of mid-rectal adenocarcinoma. The patient was initially diagnosed with stage IIIB microsatellite stable mid-rectal adenocarcinoma in February 2017. During restaging in June 2017, which included rectoscopy, endosonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, a complete clinical response was observed. After appropriate consultation, a watch-and-wait strategy was chosen. During stringent follow-up every 3 months for the first 3 years and thereafter every 6 months, no recurrence or regrowth was observed. After the fifth year of complete clinical response, we recommended an annual follow-up. As of November 2023, the patient has no signs of recurrence or late toxicity after radiochemotherapy. The omission of resection in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and the establishment of a watch-and-wait strategy are currently under discussion as possible treatment courses in patients with complete clinical response. Long-term data on watch-and-wait strategies for patients with a complete clinical response in locally advanced rectal cancer are rare. A clear national and international accepted standardization of follow-up programs for patients managed by a watch-and-wait strategy in the long-term is missing. Here, we report the case of a patient who had undergone a follow-up program for more than five years and discuss the current literature. Our case report and literature review highlights that a watch-and-wait strategy does not seem to increase the risk of systemic disease or compromise survival outcomes in selected locally advanced rectal cancer patients. Thus, our case contributes to the growing body of knowledge on personalized and precision medicine for rectal cancer.

Surveillance strategies following curative resection and non-operative approach of rectal cancer: How and how long? Review of current recommendations

Different follow-up strategies are available for patients with rectal cancer following curative treatment. A combination of biochemical testing and imaging investigation, associated with physical examination are commonly used. However, there is currently no consensus about the types of tests to perform, the timing of the testing, and even the need for follow-up at all has been questioned. The aim of this study was to review the evidence of the impact of different follow-up tests and programs in patients with non-metastatic disease after definitive treatment of the primary. A literature review was performed of studies published on MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to November 2022. Current published guidelines from the most authoritative specialty societies were also reviewed. According to the follow-up strategies available, the office visit is not efficient but represents the only way to maintain direct contact with the patient and is recommended by all authoritative specialty societies. In colorectal cancer surveillance, carcinoembryonic antigen represents the only established tumor marker. Abdominal and chest computed tomography scan is recommended considering that the liver and lungs are the most common sites of recurrence. Since local relapse in rectal cancer is higher than in colon cancer, endoscopic surveillance is mandatory. Different follow-up regimens have been published but randomized comparisons and meta-analyses do not allow to determine whether intensive or less intensive follow-up had any significant influence on survival and recurrence detection rate. The available data do not allow the drawing of final conclusions on the ideal surveillance methods and the frequency with which they should be applied. It is very useful and urgent for clinicians to identify a cost-effective strategy that allows early identification of recurrence with a special focus for high-risk patients and patients undergoing a “watch and wait” approach.

Efficacy and safety of the "watch-and-wait" approach for rectal cancer with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Watch-and-Wait (WW) approach is positioned at the cutting edge of non-invasive approach for rectal cancer patients who achieve clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical, oncologic, and survival outcomes of WW versus radical surgery (RS) and to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and possible superiority of WW.

METHODS

A systematic search for studies comparing WW with RS was conducted on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. After screening for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment, statistical analysis was performed using Stata/SE14.0 software. Permanent colostomy (PC), local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), cancer-related death (CRD), 2-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using fixed effects or random-effects models depending on the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with moderate-high quality involving 1254 patients were included. Of these, 513 patients were managed with WW and 741 patients were subjected to RS. Compared to RS group, WW group had higher rate of LR (odds ratio OR = 11.09, 95% confidence interval CI = 5.30-23.20, P = 0.000), 2-year OS, and 3-year OS and had lower rate of PC (OR = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.05-0.29, P = 0.000). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to DM, CRD, 2-, 3-, and 5-year DFS (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.81-1.03, P = 0.153), or 5-year OS (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.28-3.63, P = 0.988).

CONCLUSION

The WW is a promising treatment approach and is a relatively safe alternative to RS for managing patients with rectal cancer who achieve cCR after nCRT. However, this modality requires rigorous screening criteria and standardized follow-up. Large-scale, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to further verify the outcomes of WW approach.

Short- and long-term outcomes of local excision with adjuvant radiotherapy in high-risk T1 rectal cancer patients

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

A meta-analysis of the watch-and-wait strategy versus total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer exhibiting complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Background

Some clinical researchers have reported that patients with cCR (clinical complete response) status after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) could adopt the watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy. Compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, the W&W strategy could achieve a similar overall survival. Could the W&W strategy replace TME surgery as the main treatment option for the cCR patients? By using the meta-analysis method, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of the W&W strategy and TME surgery for rectal cancer exhibiting cCR after nCRT.

Methods

We evaluated two treatment strategies for rectal cancer with cCR after nCRT up to July 2021 by searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases. Clinical data for primary outcomes (local recurrence, cancer-related death and distant metastasis), and secondary outcomes (disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)) were collected to evaluate the efficacy and safety in the two groups.

Results

We included nine studies with 818 patients in the meta-analysis, and there were five moderate-quality studies and four high-quality studies. A total of 339 patients were in the W&W group and 479 patients were in the TME group. The local recurrence rate in the W&W group was greater than that in the TME group in the fixed-effects model (OR 8.54, 95% CI 3.52 to 20.71, P < 0.001). The results of other outcomes were similar in the two groups.

Conclusion

The local recurrence rate of the W&W group was greater than that in the TME group, but other results were similar in the two groups. With the help of physical examination and salvage therapy, the W&W strategy could achieve similar treatment effects with the TME approach.

Trial registration

Protocol registration number: CRD42021244032.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02415-y.

Watch-and-wait strategy in rectal cancer: Is there a tumour size limit? Results from two pooled prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Frequency and predictive factors for a clinical complete response (cCR) in unselected patients are unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two prospective observational studies were designed and pooled to explore predictive factors for cCR. Both studies evaluated the watch-and-wait strategy in consecutive patients; the first single-institutional study in elderly with a small tumour, the second multi-institutional study in all the patients receiving standard of care preoperative radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Four hundred and ninety patients were analysed. Short-course radiotherapy alone, or with consolidation chemotherapy or chemoradiation was given to 40.6%, 40.2% and 19.2% of the patients, respectively. The median interval from the radiation start to the first tumour response assessment was 10.2 weeks for short-course radiation and 13.2 weeks for chemoradiation. Seventy-three patients had cCR and 71 underwent w&w with the median follow-up of 24 months. The regrowth rate was 26.8%. cCR rate was 39.0% for low-risk cancer (cT1-2N0), 16.8% for intermediate-risk (cT3 with unthreatened mesorectal fascia [MRF-] or cT2N+) and 5.4% for high-risk (cT4 or MRF+). In the multivariable analysis, tumour volume (or tumour length and circumferential extent) and cN status were significant predictors for cCR. In circular cancers or with a length ≥7 cm (n = 184), cCR rate was only 2.7%, sustained cCR 1.6% and the sensitivity of cCR diagnosis 23.1%. None of 27 patients with a tumour larger than 120 cm³ achieved cCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering watch-and-wait strategy is questionable in patients with circular tumours or with tumour length ≥7 cm.

The risk of distant metastases in rectal cancer managed by a watch-and-wait strategy - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The watch-and-wait (w&w) strategy is associated with frequent local regrowth (LR). Distant metastases (DM) occur more often in the patients with LR than in those without. However, it is unknown whether omitting immediate surgery results in the additional risk of DM.

MATERIALS/METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the maximum risk of additional DM. To estimate this, we used data showing the proportions of DM in patients with and without LR, assuming that the excess DM in patients with LR may develop in two ways: from subclinical DM already present at baseline and due to seeding from the uncontrolled primary tumor, and that the incidence of subclinical DM at baseline in the LR subgroup is at least not lower than in the non-LR subgroup. Based on the calculated rate of excess DM in the LR subgroup we have obtained the rate for the whole group of patients undergoing w&w.

RESULTS

The maximum estimated risk of additional DM was 3.0% (95% CI: 1.2-4.9%) in the total group. After correction for short follow-up, the maximum risk at 5 years was 6.5%. Thus, the risk of excess DM is between 0% and 6.5%. Other evidence from a systematic review and the conservative assumptions taken for the calculation of the correction suggest that this maximum risk may be overestimated.

CONCLUSIONS

The additional risk of DM seems to be low. However, the high probability of bias, heterogeneity of the patients' population and low quality of evidence make our estimation uncertain.

Organ-saving surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: Analysis of failures and long-term results

BACKGROUND

To analyze long-term results and risk of relapse in the clinical TNM stages II and III, mid-low rectal cancer patients (RC pts), treated with transanal local excision (LE) after major response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (n-CRT).

METHODS

Thirty-two out of 345 extraperitoneal cT3-4 or N+ RC pts (9.3%) underwent LE.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

extraperitoneal RC, adenocarcinoma, ECOG Performance Status ≤2. Pts with distant metastases were excluded.

RESULTS

All pts showed histologically clear margins of resection and 81.2% were restaged ypT0/mic/1. Nine out of 32 (28.1%) pts relapsed: 7 (21.8%) showed a local recurrence, of which 5 (15.6%) at the endorectal suture, 1 (3.1%) pelvic and 1 (3.1%) mesorectal. Two pts (6.2%) relapsed distantly. Among the pT0/1, 11.5% relapsed vs 100% of the pT2 and pT4 ones. The six pts relapsing locally or in the mesorectal fat underwent a salvage total mesorectal excision surgery. The old patient with pelvic recurrence relapsed after 108 months and underwent a re-irradiation; the two pts with distant metastases were treated with chemotherapy followed by radical surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Presently combined approach seems a valid option in major responders, confirming its potential curative impact in the ypT0/mic/1 pts. A strict selection of pts is basic to obtain favourable results.

Prognosis comparison between wait and watch and surgical strategy on rectal cancer patients after treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

After achieving a clinical complete response through neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, a nonoperative management approach for rectal cancer patients known as Wait and Watch (W&W) has gained increasing attention. However, the W&W strategy has been related to higher local recurrence and ambiguous long-term survival. This meta-analysis compared key prognosis indicators between W&W and surgical treatment in an effort to clarify some long-standing points of confusion.

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science, EMbase, Cochrane Library were searched for relevant researches comparing W&W with surgery treatment, with a time criteria set from 1 January 2002 to 4 July 2019. Endpoints were 2-year local regrowth/recurrence, 2-year distant metastasis (plus local regrowth/recurrence), 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

In total, nine studies with 801 patients were enrolled, of which 348 were managed by W&W and 453 by surgery. Surgery patients were further divided into a pathological complete response (pCR) group (all included patients achieved pCR) and a surgery group (consisting of both pCR and non-pCR patients without deliberate screening). Compared with the surgery group, W&W patients have higher 3- and 5-year OS, and are not inferior on 2-year local regrowth (LR), 2-year distant metastasis (DM)/DM+LR, and 3- and 5-year DFS. On the other hand, compared with the pCR group, the W&W group is inferior on 2-year LR, 3- and 5-year DFS, and 5-year OS, and not inferior on 2-year DM/DM+LR and 3-year OS.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast with patients undergoing surgical treatment, the W&W group has higher 3- and 5-year OS, and is not inferior on other major prognostic indicators, which, however, is based on the fact that the tumor stage in the W&W group is generally earlier. Versus surgically treated patients who acquired pCR, W&W group is inferior on all major prognostic indicators except 2-year DM/DM+LR and 3-year OS. Additionally, by comparison of cCR definitions across different studies, we conclude that implementation of the strictest cCR criteria is critical for W&W patients to acquire maximum prognostic benefit.

"Watch and Wait" for complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

The management of rectal cancer has evolved substantially over recent decades, becoming increasingly complex. This was once a disease associated with high mortality and limited treatment options that typically necessitated a permanent colostomy, has now become a model for multidisciplinary evaluation, treatment and surgical advancement. Despite advances in the rates of total mesorectal excision, decreased local recurrence and increased 5-year survival rates, the multimodal treatment of rectal cancer is associated with a significant impact on long-term functional and quality of life outcomes including risks of bowel, bladder and sexual dysfunction, and potential need for a permanent stoma. There is great interest in strategies to decrease the toxicity of treatment, including selective use of radiation, chemotherapy or even surgery. The modern concept of selective use of surgery for patients with rectal cancer are based on the observed pathological complete response in approximately 10-20% of patients following long-course chemoradiation therapy. While definitive surgical resection remains the standard of care for all patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer, a growing number of studies are providing supportive evidence for a watch-and-wait, organ preserving approach in highly selected patients with rectal cancer. However, questions regarding the heterogeneity of patient selection, optimal method for inducing pathological complete response, methods and intervals for assessing treatment response and adequacy of follow-up remain unanswered. The aim of this review is to provide an up-to-date summary of the current evidence for the watch-and-wait management of rectal cancer following a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Oncological and Survival Outcomes in Watch and Wait Patients With a Clinical Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the oncological and survival outcomes of a Watch and Wait policy in rectal cancer after a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND

The detection of a cCR after neoadjuvant treatment may facilitate a nonoperative approach in selected patients. However, the long-term safety of this strategy remains to be validated.

METHOD

This is a systematic review of the literature to determine the oncological outcomes in Watch and Wait patients. The primary outcome was the cumulative rate of local regrowth, success of salvage surgery, and incidence of metastases. We also evaluated survival outcomes. A pooled analysis of manually extracted summary statistics from individual studies was carried out using inverse variance weighting.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies comprising 692 patients were identified; incidence of cCR was 22.4% [95% confidence interval (CI),14.3-31.8]. There were 153 (22.1%) local regrowths, of which 96% (n = 147/153) manifested in the first 3 years of surveillance. The 3-year cumulative risk of local regrowth was 21.6% (95% CI, 16.0-27.8). Salvage surgery was performed in 88% of patients, of which 121 (93%) had a complete (R0) resection. Fifty-seven metastases (8.2%) were detected, and 35 (60%) were isolated without evidence of synchronous regrowths; 3-year incidence was 6.8% (95% CI, 4.1-10.2). The 3-year overall survival was 93.5% (95% CI, 90.2-96.2).

CONCLUSION

In rectal cancer patients with a cCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, a Watch and Wait policy appears feasible and safe. Robust surveillance with early detection of regrowths allows a high rate of successful salvage surgery, without an increase in the risk of systemic disease, or adverse survival outcomes.

Report from the 19th annual Western Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference; Winnipeg, Manitoba; 29-30 September 2017

The 19th annual Western Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference (wcgccc) was held in Winnipeg, Manitoba, 29-30 September 2017. The wcgccc is an interactive multidisciplinary conference attended by health care professionals from across Western Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) who are involved in the care of patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists; pathologists; radiologists; and allied health care professionals participated in presentation and discussion sessions for the purpose of developing the recommendations presented here. This consensus statement addresses current issues in the management of colorectal cancer.

Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer after clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation

BACKGROUND

Full-thickness local excision (FTLE) for rectal cancer showing clinical complete remission (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NCRT) is associated with good oncological results. The purpose of this study was to report the results of robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery for such patients.

METHODS

Patients were treated with a 5-fluorouracil-based NCRT regimen. The determination of cCR was based on digital rectal examination, colonoscopy, and magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

Six patients underwent transanal FTLE using the da Vinci Xi surgical system. The median operative time was 106.5 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was minimal. The mean length of hospital stay was 4.2 days. After 18.2 months of follow-up, none of the patients developed local recurrences or distant disease.

CONCLUSIONS

With the use of robotic technology, FTLE can be performed with relative ease and can be considered as a viable alternative to radical resection or a "Watch and Wait" strategy.

'Watch and wait' after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

Surgery remains the cornerstone of rectal cancer treatment. However, there is significant morbidity and mortality associated with pelvic surgery, and the past decade has illustrated that a cohort of rectal cancer patients sustain a remission of local disease with chemoradiation alone. Thus, questions remain regarding the optimal management for rectal cancer; namely, accurately identifying patients who have a complete pathologic response and determining the oncologic safety of the observational approach for this patient group. This review aims to summarize the current evidence to provide an overview to the 'watch and wait' approach in rectal cancer patients with a complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

Wait-and-see treatment strategies for rectal cancer patients with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wait-and-see treatment strategies may benefit rectal cancer patients who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). In this study, we analyzed data from 9 eligible trials to compare the oncologic outcomes of 251 rectal cancer patients achieving a cCR through nonsurgical management approaches with the outcomes of 344 patients achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) through radical surgery. The two patient groups did not differ in distant metastasis rates or disease-free and overall survival, but the nonsurgical group had a higher risk of 1, 2, 3, and 5-year local recurrence. Hence, we concluded that for rectal cancer patients achieving a cCR after NCRT, a wait-and-see strategy with strict selection criteria, an appropriate follow-up schedule, and salvage treatments achieved outcomes at least as good as radical surgery. Long-term randomized and controlled trials with more uniform inclusion criteria and standardized follow-up schedules will help clarify the risks and benefits of wait-and-see treatment strategies for these patients.

Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer After Chemoradiation: Should We Extend the Observation Period in Patients with a Clinical Near-Complete Response?

BACKGROUND

To assess whether extending the observation period in patients with a near clinical complete response (near cCR) after chemoradiation (CRT) leads to an impaired oncological outcome.

METHODS

Patients who had a clinical complete response (cCR) 8-10 weeks after CRT restaging with magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopy were offered a watch-and-wait strategy (W&W1), while patients with a near cCR were offered to undergo local excision or a second restaging 6-12 weeks later. Patients who achieved a cCR at the second restaging were also offered a watch-and-wait strategy (W&W2).

RESULTS

Overall, 102 patients with a cCR at the first restaging immediately entered the W&W1, while the remaining 68 patients had a near cCR: 19 patients underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery and 49 patients opted for a second restaging. Additionally, 44/49 (90%) patients showed a cCR at the second restaging and entered the W&W2. Patients in the W&W1 group had a 2-year local regrowth-free rate (LRFR) of 84% and 2-year overall survival (OS) of 99%, while patients in the W&W2 group had a 2-year LRFR of 73% and OS of 98% (p > 0.05). Multivariable Cox regression analyses showed that late inclusion was not a significant predictive factor for higher risk of LR or lower non-regrowth disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 90% of patients with a near cCR 8-10 weeks after CRT will proceed to a cCR 6-12 weeks later; therefore, it seems logical to extend the observation period rather than to proceed to surgery. Although there is a non-significant increase in local regrowth rate in these patients, it does not seem to impact the oncological outcome.

Outcome and Salvage Surgery Following "Watch and Wait" for Rectal Cancer after Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Currently there is no reliable test to predict pathological complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. However, there is increasing interest in using clinical complete response as a surrogate marker, allowing a subset of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer to be allocated into a "watch and wait" pathway. Little is known about the oncological safety of the "watch and wait" approach or the rate of salvage surgery in cases of tumor regrowth. This information is critical for the implementation of this approach.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the rate of salvage surgery and associated oncological outcomes for patients who develop a tumor regrowth with the "watch and wait" approach.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant studies were identified through PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar search.

STUDY SELECTION

A systematic review was undertaken of studies assessing patients selected for the "watch and wait" approach according to PRISMA guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The associated tumor regrowth, salvage surgery, and disease-free and overall survival rates were assessed.

RESULTS

Five retrospective and 4 prospective observational studies were included into the analysis, with a total of 370 patients in the "watch and wait" group, of which 256 (69.2%) had persistent clinical complete response. Of those who had tumor regrowth, salvage surgery was possible in 83.8%. There was no difference in overall survival and disease-free survival between patients who received immediate surgery and the "watch and wait" group.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of this study include its retrospective nature and small sample size. Furthermore, there is significant heterogeneity between study protocols, including the short median follow-up, given that tumor regrowth and distant metastasis may manifest at a later time point.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients with tumor regrowth can be salvaged with definite surgery after "watch and wait." However, there is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions on the oncological safety of this approach; therefore, it is currently not the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer.

High nodal positivity rates even in good clinical responders after chemoradiation of rectal cancer: is organ preservation feasible?

AIM

Local excision (LE) is emerging as a treatment option for rectal cancer responding well to chemoradiation. However, it does not address the mesorectal nodal burden. We aimed to identify the factors influencing nodal positivity and subsequently defined a low-risk group by including only patients at low risk.

METHOD

A single-centre, retrospective database analysis was carried out of patients with radically resected rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

RESULTS

This study included 524 patients with predominantly low rectal tumours. Nodal positivity among ypT0, T1 and T2 groups was 14.7%, 28% and 30%, respectively. Multivariate analysis with stepwise logistic regression identified the following low-risk features: age ≥ 40 years, nonsignet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) histology and pathological complete response (pCR). Sixty-nine patients fulfilling all three criteria were analysed and the nodal positivity was found to be 10.1%, which implies that, if these patients had been selected for LE, one in 10 would have had positive mesorectal nodes.

CONCLUSION

Even in patients with low-risk criteria (pCR, non-SRCC histology and age ≥ 40 years), the residual positive nodal disease burden is 10%. Whether this high incidence of residual nodal disease translates into a similar risk of locoregional recurrence if an organ-preservation strategy is adopted is unclear.

Optimal therapy for resectable rectal cancer

A lot can be gained by improving our understanding of the optimal sequence of existing therapies in rectal cancer, with the more difficult task of balancing the morbidity of recurrence with the morbidity of prescribed therapies that are particularly toxic owing to tumour location. This review aims to highlight a recent shift in treatment strategies in the opposite direction, with a focus on earlier, more intense systemic treatments with reduced local therapies. Understanding the rationale for and evidence to support this shift will help identify gaps, shape future trials, and ultimately answer the question of whether this is indeed the right path to follow with regards to maintaining local control rates and long-term outcomes for patients, and improving distal disease control and local treatment-related morbidities without compromising quality of life.

Oncologic Outcomes according to the Treatment Strategy in Radiologic Complete Responders after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes between treatment strategies for rectal cancer [radical surgery, local excision (LE), and the wait-and-see approach] in radiologic complete responders after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed rectal cancer patients and included 52 radiologic complete responders after nCRT defined as no residual tumor or residual fibrosis and no suspicious metastatic lymph nodes on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Clinicopathologic features and oncologic outcomes were compared according to the treatment strategies.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 41 months (range, 6-80). Twenty-eight patients underwent radical surgery, whereas 16 underwent LE, and 8 were closely monitored without initial surgery. The pathologic complete response rate was 40.9%. Patients who underwent radical surgery showed better prognosis compared to those who underwent LE or wait-and-see (3-year disease-free survival: radical surgery 85.0% vs. LE 62.5%, wait-and-see 75.0%, p = 0.019; 3-year local recurrence-free survival: radical surgery 96.4% vs. LE 67.0%, wait-and-see 75.0%, p = 0.009). After recurrence, patients who underwent salvage surgery showed a relatively good oncologic outcome.

CONCLUSION

Pursuing LE or the wait-and-see approach instead of radical surgery in rectal cancer patients undergoing nCRT may bring about a detrimental oncologic outcome if clinical complete response is solely determined by MRI.

Rectal cancer: An evidence-based update for primary care providers

Rectal adenocarcinoma is an important cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, and key anatomic differences between the rectum and the colon have significant implications for management of rectal cancer. Many advances have been made in the diagnosis and management of rectal cancer. These include clinical staging with imaging studies such as endorectal ultrasound and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, operative approaches such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery and laparoscopic and robotic assisted proctectomy, as well as refined neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies. For stage II and III rectal cancers, combined chemoradiotherapy offers the lowest rates of local and distant relapse, and is delivered neoadjuvantly to improve tolerability and optimize surgical outcomes, particularly when sphincter-sparing surgery is an endpoint. The goal in rectal cancer treatment is to optimize disease-free and overall survival while minimizing the risk of local recurrence and toxicity from both radiation and systemic therapy. Optimal patient outcomes depend on multidisciplinary involvement for tailored therapy. The successful management of rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach, with the involvement of enterostomal nurses, gastroenterologists, medical and radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and surgeons. The identification of patients who are candidates for combined modality treatment is particularly useful to optimize outcomes. This article provides an overview of the diagnosis, staging and multimodal therapy of patients with rectal cancer for primary care providers.

Current issues in locally advanced colorectal cancer treated by preoperative chemoradiotherapy

In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, preoperative chemoradiotherapy has proven to significantly improve local control and cause lower treatment-related toxicity compared with postoperative adjuvant treatment. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision or tumor specific mesorectal excision has evolved as the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. The paradigm shift from postoperative to preoperative therapy has raised a series of concerns however that have practical clinical implications. These include the method used to predict patients who will show good response, sphincter preservation, the application of conservative management such as local excision or “wait-and-watch” in patients obtaining a good response following preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and the role of adjuvant chemotherapy. This review addresses these current issues in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated by preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Evolving treatment strategies for colorectal cancer: A critical review of current therapeutic options

Management of rectal cancer has markedly evolved over the last two decades. New technologies of staging have allowed a more precise definition of tumor extension. Refinements in surgical concepts and techniques have resulted in higher rates of sphincter preservation and better functional outcome for patients with this malignancy. Although, preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision has become the standard of care for locally advanced tumors, many controversial matters in management of rectal cancer still need to be defined. These include the feasibility of a non-surgical approach after a favorable response to neoadjuvant therapy, the ideal margins of surgical resection for sphincter preservation and the adequacy of minimally invasive techniques of tumor resection. In this article, after an extensive search in PubMed and Embase databases, we critically review the current strategies and the most debatable matters in treatment of rectal cancer.

Tailored rectal cancer treatment--a time for implementing contemporary prognostic factors?

AIM

To report data supporting the development of tailored treatment strategies for rectal cancer.

METHOD

A comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of prognostic factors cur-rently not included in international guidelines in rectal cancer management.

RESULTS

There is considerable variation in treatment guidelines for rectal cancer worldwide, especially for Stage II and Stage III disease. Long-term side effects of chemoradiotherapy are not considered in any guideline. Detailed knowledge, and the prognostic impact, of the circumferential resection margin, tumour grade and venous invasion should be factored into the development of a treatment strategy.

CONCLUSION

Factors additional to the TNM system should improve decision making for contemporary rectal cancer treatment. Optimized radiological and pathological evaluations, and a focus on detailed clinical factors, should be the basis for treatment decisions. International guidelines should consider all known prognostic factors for long-term oncological and functional outcomes.

Non-operative management for locally advanced rectal cancer: critical review and future perspective

SUMMARY Over the last few decades we have observed important advances in diagnostic imaging, surgery, pathology and multimodal treatments for rectal cancer, as well as increased efforts to reduce treatment-related toxicities and preserve quality of life for curatively treated patients. Neoadjuvant short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision remain widely accepted as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. However, a carefully selected group of patients achieving a complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy may be spared the effects of surgery and achieve satisfactory oncologic outcomes with a ‘wait-and-see’ strategy. Although supported by the results of previous studies, this intriguing paradigm shift needs prospective evaluation within a clinical trial setting and a more accurate prediction and assessment of response by means of tumor biomarkers and diagnostic imaging.

Surgical issues in locally advanced rectal cancer treated by preoperative chemoradiotherapy

The standard treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer is preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision. This approach is supported by randomized trials, but there are still many unanswered questions about the multimodal management of rectal cancer. In surgical terms, these include the optimal time interval between completion of chemoradiotherapy and surgery; adequate distal resection margin and circumferential radial margin; sphincter preservation; laparoscopic surgery; and conservative management, including a 'wait and see' policy and local excision. This review considers these controversial issues in preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer in a decision analysis and outcome prediction model

PURPOSE

Reduction of local recurrences has been achieved by radiotherapy, but also by improved surgical technique (total mesorectal excision). Radiotherapy has adverse effects and cannot exceed local dose limits. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy may result in overtreatment. We aimed to define the minimum local benefit that would have to be postulated for radiotherapy in order to bring a benefit to the overall cohort. We hypothesized that saving radiotherapy as treatment for a subset of patients with high-risk tumors and local recurrences improves the outcome of the overall cohort. We sought to simulate preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in theoretical decision analysis model based on published recurrence rates, with overall survival being the primary end point.

METHODS

Computerized literature search for studies published between 1996 and 2011, supplemented by manual review of the retrieved reference lists.

RESULTS

Postoperative radiotherapy evolved as preferred strategy with cure rates of 65.6 % vs. 63.7 % for postoperative and neoadjuvant radiotherapy, respectively, and a decrease of radiation exposure to 42.9 % of the cohort. The system was sensitive to (1) the fraction of stage I cancers included in the cohort, (2) the difference between local recurrence rates (LRR) for neoadjuvant radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, or surgery-only approach, and (3) the compliance with the postoperative radiotherapy. If the surgery-only recurrence was set to the published 10 %, 13 %, and 27 %, respectively, adjuvant radiotherapy had to achieve LRR below the threshold values of 6.3 %, 8.5 %, and 18.3 % to reverse the impact of compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiotherapy only improves cancer-specific survival of the cohort if there is a large difference in LRR with versus without it. Routine treatment may therefore be inferior to a tailored radiotherapy regimen.

Organ-preserving therapy for rectal cancer

SUMMARY Total mesorectal excision has resulted in low local recurrence rates in rectal cancer patients; however, it is associated with a significant impairment in quality of life. The operation may be disfiguring and cause permanent effects on gastrointestinal, genitourinary and sexual function. Recently, researchers have identified subgroups of rectal cancer patients who may be able to forgo total mesorectal excision without compromising their oncological outcomes. Two groups of patients are candidates for organ preservation: those with early-stage disease that may be adequately addressed by a more limited resection, and those with locally advanced disease that has responded completely to neoadjuvant therapy. Additionally, radiation alone may be curative in both early and locally advanced disease. This article reviews the data regarding these approaches.

Critical appraisal of the 'wait and see' approach in rectal cancer for clinical complete responders after chemoradiation

BACKGROUND

Some 10-20 per cent of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer achieve a pathological complete response (pCR) at surgery following preoperative chemoradiation (CRT). Some demonstrate a sustained clinical complete response (cCR), defined as absence of clinically detectable residual tumour after CRT, and do not undergo resection. The aim of this review was to evaluate non-operative treatment of rectal cancer after CRT, and the outcome of patients observed without radical surgery.

METHODS

A systematic computerized search identified 30 publications (9 series, 650 patients) evaluating a non-operative approach after CRT. Original data were extracted and tabulated, and study quality evaluated. The primary outcome measure was cCR. Secondary outcome measures included locoregional failure rate, disease-free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

The most recent Habr-Gama series reported a low locoregional failure rate of 4·6 per cent, with 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates of 96 and 72 per cent respectively. These findings were supported by a small prospective Dutch study. However, other retrospective series have described higher recurrence rates. All studies were heterogeneous in staging, inclusion criteria, study design and rigour of follow-up after CRT, which might explain the different outcomes. The definition of cCR was inconsistent, with only partial concordance with pCR. The results suggested that patients who are observed, but subsequently fail to sustain a cCR, may fare worse than those who undergo immediate tumour resection.

CONCLUSION

The rationale of a 'wait and see' policy relies mainly on retrospective observations from a single series. Proof of principle in small low rectal cancers, where clinical assessment is easy, should not be extrapolated uncritically to more advanced cancers where nodal involvement is common. Long-term prospective observational studies with more uniform inclusion criteria are required to evaluate the risk versus benefit.

Neoadjuvant treatment response as an early response indicator for patients with rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer is associated with improved local control and may result in complete tumor response. Associations between tumor response and disease control following radical resection should be established before tumor response is used to evaluate treatment strategies. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare oncologic outcomes associated with the degree of pathologic response after chemoradiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients with locally advanced (cT3-4 or cN+ by endorectal ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) rectal carcinoma diagnosed from 1993 to 2008 at our institution and treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and radical resection were identified, and their records were retrospectively reviewed. The median radiation dose was 50.4 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), distant metastasis (DM), and local recurrence (LR) rates were compared among patients with complete (ypT0N0), intermediate (ypT1-2N0), or poor (ypT3-4 or N+) response by using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

In all, 725 patients were classified by tumor response: complete (131; 18.1%), intermediate (210; 29.0%), and poor (384; 53.0%). Age, sex, cN stage, and tumor location were not related to tumor response. Tumor response (complete v intermediate v poor) was associated with 5-year RFS (90.5% v 78.7% v 58.5%; P < .001), 5-year DM rates (7.0% v 10.1% v 26.5%; P < .001), and 5-year LR only rates (0% v 1.4% v 4.4%; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Treatment response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy among patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing radical resection is an early surrogate marker and correlate to oncologic outcomes. These data provide guidance with response-stratified oncologic benchmarks for comparisons of novel treatment strategies.

Rectum-conserving surgery in the era of chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

A complete pathological response occurs in 10-30 per cent of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The standard of care has been radical surgery with high morbidity risks and the challenges of stomata despite the favourable prognosis. This review assessed minimalist approaches (transanal excision or observation alone) to tumours with a response to CRT.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using PubMed and Embase databases. Keywords included: 'rectal', 'cancer', 'transanal', 'conservative', 'complete pathological response', 'radiotherapy' and 'neoadjuvant'. Original articles from all relevant listings were sourced. These were hand searched for further articles of relevance. Main outcome measures assessed were rates of local recurrence and overall survival, and equivalence to radical surgery.

RESULTS

Purely conservative 'watch and wait' strategies after CRT are still controversial. Originally used for elderly patients or those who refused surgery, the data support transanal excision of rectal tumours showing a good response to CRT. A complete pathological response in the T stage (ypT0) indicates < 5 per cent risk of nodal metastases.

CONCLUSION

Rectal tumours showing an excellent response to CRT may be suitable for local excision, with equivalent outcomes to radical surgery. This approach should be the subject of prospective clinical trials in specialist centres.

Complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for distal rectal cancer: characterization of clinical and endoscopic findings for standardization

BACKGROUND

Complete tumor regression may develop after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for distal rectal cancer. Studies have suggested that selected patients with complete clinical response may avoid radical surgery and close surveillance may provide good outcomes with no oncologic compromise. However, definition of complete clinical response is often imprecise and may vary between different studies. The aim of this study is to provide a clear definition for a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with distal rectal cancer in addition to actual endoscopic videos from patients managed nonoperatively.

METHODS

Patients with nonmetastatic distal rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, including 50.4 Gy and concomitant 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, were assessed for tumor response at least 8 weeks after chemoradiation therapy completion. Complete and incomplete clinical responses were defined based on clinical and endoscopic findings. Patients with complete clinical response were not immediately operated on and were closely followed. Early and late endoscopic findings were recorded.

RESULTS

Definition of a complete clinical response should be based on very strict clinical and endoscopic criteria. The finding of any residual superficial ulceration, irregularity, or nodule should prompt surgical attention, including transanal full-thickness excision or even a radical resection with total mesorectal excision. Standard or incisional biopsies should be avoided in this setting. Complete clinical responders should harbor no more than whitening of the mucosa, teleangiectasia with mucosal integrity to be considered for a nonoperative approach. In the presence of these findings, regularly scheduled reassessments may provide a safe alternative to these patients with early detection of recurrent disease.

CONCLUSION

Strict definition of the clinical and endoscopic findings of patients experiencing complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy may provide a useful tool for the understanding of outcomes of patients managed with no immediate surgery allowing standardization of classifications and comparison between the experiences of different institutions.

Treatment for patients with rectal cancer and a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy: a decision analysis

PURPOSE

A clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy occurs in a subset of patients with rectal cancer. Management of these patients is controversial and tension exists between the recurrence risk with observation, and the impact of surgery on quality-of-life. Therefore, the objective was to develop a decision-analytic model to evaluate the relative benefits of surgery vs. observation in rectal cancer patients who achieve clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

METHODS

Clinically relevant inputs and events, including the ability to identify complete responders, likelihood of relapse and of salvage surgery after relapse, and utilities for each health state, were simulated by use of a Markov state-transition model. Transition probabilities and health-state utilities were derived from the literature and expert consensus. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of model results to assumptions. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life expectancy.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the quality-adjusted life expectancy with surgery exceeded observation (5.63 vs. 5.34 quality-adjusted life-years). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that observation was preferred to surgery if the ability to correctly identify patients with true complete responses exceeded 58 percent, if quality-of-life after surgery was poor (utility <0.81), or if the relative reduction in recurrence risk with surgery was <43 percent when compared with observation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model outlines the issues associated with surgery vs. observation, and suggests that surgery is beneficial for the average patient with rectal cancer with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. Current limitations in the clinical assessment of patient response to chemoradiation constitute an important factor influencing our results, and therefore warrant further investigation.

Complete clinical response after preoperative chemoradiation in rectal cancer: is a "wait and see" policy justified?

PURPOSE

A proportion of patients, who receive preoperative chemoradiation for locally advanced (T3, T4, NX) rectal cancer achieve a complete clinical response and a pathologic complete response in the region of 15 to 30 percent. Support is growing in the United Kingdom for the concept of "waiting to see" and not proceeding to radical surgery when a complete clinical response is observed. The purpose of this review was to use a literature search to assess how often complete clinical response is achieved after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, the concordance of this finding with pathologic complete response, and to determine whether it is feasible to observe patients who achieve complete clinical response rather than proceed to surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 218 Phase I/II or retrospective studies and 28 Phase III trials of preoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiation were identified: 96 percent of trials documented the pathologic complete response, but only 38 trials presented data on the achievement of a complete clinical response/partial clinical response. Only five studies were found in which patients with clinically staged T2/T3 tumors were treated with radiotherapy/chemoradiation and did not routinely proceed to surgery and also reported on the long-term outcome of a "wait and see" policy.

DISCUSSION

It remains uncertain whether the degree of response to chemoradiation in terms of complete clinical response or pathologic complete response is a useful clinical end point. Studies that include T3 rectal cancer are associated with high local recurrence rates after nonsurgical treatment. Few studies report long-term outcome after achievement of a complete clinical response.

CONCLUSIONS

The end point of complete clinical response is inconsistently defined and seems insufficiently robust with only partial concordance with pathologic complete response. The rationale of a "wait and see" policy when complete clinical response status is achieved relies on retrospective observations, which are currently insufficient to support this policy except in patients who are recognized to be unfit for or refuse radical surgery.

Long-term outcomes of patients with localized rectal cancer treated with chemoradiation or radiotherapy alone because of medical inoperability or patient refusal

PURPOSE

The standard management of rectal cancer continues to be defined by the results of randomized, clinical trials exploring the optimal timing and use of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy in relation to surgery. The patient with rectal cancer who is elderly and/or has significant comorbidities and the patient who refuses surgery are clinical contexts for which there is limited current data to guide decision making.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed at six Australian centers of patients with rectal cancer treated with radiation therapy or chemoradiation alone because of excessive operative risk or patient refusal of surgery.

RESULTS

We identified 48 patients treated between August 1998 and June 2005 with a median age of 76 (range, 49-94) years. Twenty-four patients (50 percent) were considered medically inoperable and 24 patients refused surgery. Treatment was with chemoradiation (with 5-fluorouracil) in 36 patients and radiotherapy alone in 12 patients; 93 percent completed the planned therapy. A clinical complete response was seen in 56 percent and a partial response in 30 percent of patients. At a median follow-up of 49 months, 18 patients have disease progression, including 10 of 24 in the medically inoperable group and 8 of 24 in the refused surgery group. Of the 25 deceased patients, 16 died from progressive disease and 9 from noncancer causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemoradiation or radiotherapy alone is a safe alternative that results in significant progression-free and overall survival times in patients who are considered medically inoperable or refuse to undergo surgery. Ultimately, however, many patients will progress.