Rectal cancer with complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, surgery, or "watch and wait"

Analysis of risk characteristics for early progression and late progression in locally advanced rectal cancer patients: a large population-based and validated study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to explore the factors influencing early progression (EP) and late progression (LP) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients.

METHODS

The patients were classified into EP and LP groups using one year as a cutoff. The random survival forest model was utilized to calculate the probability of time-to-progression. Besides, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) were conducted to validate our results.

RESULTS

Our study revealed that PNI, CEA level, and pathological stage were independent prognostic factors for PFS both in EP group and LP group. For EP group patients, Group 1 had the highest probability of progression at the 9th month of follow-up, while Group 2 exhibited the highest probability at the 6th month. Group 3, on the other hand, showed two peaks of progression at the 4th and 8th months of follow-up. As for LP group patients, Groups 4, 5, and 6 all exhibited peaks of progression between the 18th and 24th months of follow-up. Furthermore, our results suggested that PNI was also an independent prognostic factor affecting OS in both EP group and LP group. Finally, the analysis of IPTW and SEER database further confirmed our findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicated a significant correlation between immune and nutritional status with PFS and OS in both EP and LP groups. These insights can aid healthcare professionals in effectively identifying and evaluating patients' nutritional status, enabling them to develop tailored nutrition plans and interventions.

Whether the watch-and-wait strategy has application value for rectal cancer with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy? A network meta-analysis

The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety between the watch-and-wait strategy (WW), radical surgery (RS), and local excision (LE) for rectal cancer with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nCRT). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinical trials to compare WW with RS and LE for patients with cCR until March 2023 and collected the following data: local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), cancer-related death (CRD), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). In total, 2240 patients from 21 studies were included. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the three groups in terms of CRD and 2-, 3-, and 5-year OS (P < 0.05). The RS group was significantly better than the WW group in terms of the LR rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.12, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.06-0.21, P < 0.001, I2 = 0 %], 3-year DFS (OR = 1.56, 95 % CI: 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01, I2 = 38 %), and 5-year DFS (OR = 2.30, 95 % CI: 1.53-3.46, P < 0.001, I2 = 34 %). The results of network meta-analysis were also similar. After sensitivity analysis, the 5-year OS of the RS group was significantly better than that of the WW group (OR = 2.77, 95 % CI: 1.28-6.00, P = 0.009, I2 = 33 %). Nevertheless, neither regression analysis nor subgroup analysis provided meaningful results. However, the cumulative meta-analysis of LR, DM, and 3- and 5-year DFS revealed significant turning points (P < 0.05). Our meta-analysis recommends using the WW strategy for patients with cCR having poor underlying conditions and high surgical risk; however, there is a risk of higher LR and worse survival after 3 years.

Survival outcomes of salvage surgery in the watch-and-wait approach for rectal cancer with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the outcomes of the watch-and-wait (WW) approach versus radical surgery (RS) in rectal cancers with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

This study followed the PRISMA guidelines. Major databases were searched to identify relevant articles. WW and RS were compared through meta-analyses of pooled proportions. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence, and distant metastasis rates. Pooled salvage surgery rates and outcomes were also collected. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 1,112 rectal cancer patients showing cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation were included. Of these patients, 378 were treated nonoperatively with WW, 663 underwent RS, and 71 underwent local excision. The 2-year OS (risk ratio [RR], 0.95; P = 0.94), 5-year OS (RR, 2.59; P = 0.25), and distant metastasis rates (RR, 1.05; P = 0.80) showed no significant differences between WW and RS. Local recurrence was more frequent in the WW group (RR, 6.93; P < 0.001), and 78.4% of patients later underwent salvage surgery (R0 resection rate, 97.5%). The 2-year DFS (RR, 1.58; P = 0.05) and 5-year DFS (RR, 2.07; P = 0.02) were higher among RS cases. However, after adjustment for R0 salvage surgery, DFS showed no significant between-group difference (RR, 0.82; P = 0.41).

CONCLUSION

Local recurrence rates are higher for WW than RS, but complete salvage surgery is often possible with similar long-term outcomes. WW is a viable strategy for rectal cancer with cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, but further research is required to improve patient selection.

Oncologic outcomes of watch-and-wait strategy or surgery for low to intermediate rectal cancer in clinical complete remission after adjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A watch-and-wait (WW) strategy or surgery for low to intermediate rectal cancer that has reached clinical complete remission (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCRT) or total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has been widely used in the clinic, but both treatment strategies are controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the oncologic outcomes of a watch-and-wait strategy or a surgical approach to treat rectal cancer in complete remission and to report the evidence-based clinical advantages of the two treatment strategies.

METHODS

Seven national and international databases were searched for clinical trials comparing the watch-and-wait strategy with surgical treatment for oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer in clinical complete remission.

RESULTS

In terms of oncological outcomes, there was no significant difference between the watch-and-wait strategy and surgical treatment in terms of overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.52, 1.64), P = 0.777), and subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in 5-year disease-free survival (5-year DFS) between WW and both local excision (LE) and radical surgery (RS) (HR = 1.76, 95% CI (0.97, 3.19), P = 0.279; HR = 1.98, 95% CI (0.95, 4.13), P = 0.164), in distant metastasis rate (RR = 1.12, 95% CI (0.73, 1.72), P = 0.593), mortality rate (RR = 1.62, 95% CI (0.93, 2.84), P = 0.09), and organ preservation rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.94, 1.17), P = 0.394) which were not statistically significant and on the outcome indicators of local recurrence rate (RR = 2.09, 95% CI (1.44, 3.03), P < 0.001) and stoma rate (RR = 0.35, 95% CI (0.20, 0.61), P < 0.001). There were significant differences between the WW group and the surgical treatment group.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in OS, 5-year DFS, distant metastasis, and mortality between the WW strategy group and the surgical treatment group. The WW strategy did not increase the risk of local recurrence compared with local resection but may be at greater risk of local recurrence compared with radical surgery, and the WW group was significantly better than the surgical group in terms of stoma rate; the WW strategy was evidently superior in preserving organ integrity compared to radical excision. Consequently, for patients who exhibit a profound inclination towards organ preservation and the evasion of stoma formation in the scenario of clinically complete remission of rectal cancer, the WW strategy can be contemplated as a pragmatic alternative to surgical interventions. It is, however, paramount to emphasize that the deployment of such a strategy should be meticulously undertaken within the ambit of a multidisciplinary team's management and within specialized centers dedicated to rectal cancer management.

DSTN Hypomethylation Promotes Radiotherapy Resistance of Rectal Cancer by Activating the Wnt/β-Catenin Signaling Pathway

PURPOSE

Although surgical resection combined with neoadjuvant radiation therapy can reduce the local recurrence rate of rectal cancer, not all patients benefit from neoadjuvant radiation therapy. Therefore, screening for patients with rectal cancer who are sensitive or resistant to radiation therapy has great clinical significance.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with rectal cancer were selected according to postoperative tumor regression grade, and tumor samples were taken for detection. Differential genes between radiation-resistant and radiation-sensitive tissues were screened and validated by Illumina Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip, proteomics, Agena MassARRAY methylation, reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction, and immunohistochemistry. In vitro and in vivo functional experiments verified the role of DSTN. Protein coimmunoprecipitation, western blot, and immunofluorescence were used to investigate the mechanisms of DSTN-related radiation resistance.

RESULTS

DSTN was found to be highly expressed (P < .05) and hypomethylated (P < .01) in rectal cancer tissues resistant to neoadjuvant radiation therapy. Follow-up data confirmed that patients with high expression of DSTN in neoadjuvant radiation therapy-resistant rectal cancer tissues had shorter disease-free survival (P < .05). DSTN expression increased after methyltransferase inhibitor inhibition of DNA methylation in colorectal cancer cells (P < .05). In vitro and in vivo experiments showed that knockdown of DSTN promoted the sensitivity of colorectal cancer cells to radiation therapy, and overexpression of DSTN promoted the resistance of colorectal cancer cells to radiation (P < .05). The Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway was activated in colorectal cancer cells overexpressing DSTN. β-catenin was highly expressed in radiation therapy-resistant tissues, and there was a linear correlation between the expression of DSTN and β-catenin (P < .0001). Further studies showed that DSTN can bind to β-catenin and increase its stability.

CONCLUSIONS

The degree of DNA methylation and the expression level of DSTN can be used as biomarkers to predict the sensitivity of neoadjuvant radiation therapy for rectal cancer. DSTN and β-catenin are also expected to become a reference for the selection of neoadjuvant radiation therapy.

Is Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer Feasible?

During the past decade, the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has become more complex. Total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) has increased the rates of both clinical and pathologic complete response, resulting in improved long-term oncological outcomes. The feasibility to implement nonoperative management (NOM) depends on solving current challenges such as how to correctly identify the best candidates for a NOM without compromising oncologic safety. NOM should be part of the treatment discussion of LARC, considering increasing rates of clinical complete response, potential quality of life gains, avoidance of surgical morbidity, and patient preferences.

New Opportunities for Minimizing Toxicity in Rectal Cancer Management

Advances in multimodal management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), consisting of preoperative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy followed by surgery with or without adjuvant chemotherapy, have improved local disease control and patient survival but are associated with significant risk for acute and long-term morbidity. Recently published trials, evaluating treatment dose intensification via the addition of preoperative induction or consolidation chemotherapy (total neoadjuvant therapy [TNT]), have demonstrated improved tumor response rates while maintaining acceptable toxicity. In addition, TNT has led to an increased number of patients achieving a clinical complete response and thus eligible to pursue a nonoperative, organ-preserving, watch and wait approach, thereby avoiding toxicities associated with surgery, such as bowel dysfunction and stoma-related complications. Ongoing trials using immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with mismatch repair-deficient tumors suggest that this subgroup of patients with LARC could potentially be treated with immunotherapy alone, sparing them the toxicity associated with preoperative treatment and surgery. However, the majority of rectal cancers are mismatch repair-proficient and less responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors and require multimodal management. The synergy noted in preclinical studies between immunotherapy and radiotherapy on immunogenic tumor cell death has led to the design of ongoing clinical trials that explore the benefit of combining radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy (mainly of immune checkpoint inhibitors) and aim to increase the number of patients eligible for organ preservation.

Watch-and-Wait Approach to Rectal Cancer: The Role of Imaging

The diagnosis and treatment of rectal cancer have evolved dramatically over the past several decades. At the same time, its incidence has increased in younger populations. This review will inform the reader of advances in both diagnosis and treatment. These advances have led to the watch-and-wait approach, otherwise known as nonsurgical management. This review briefly outlines changes in medical and surgical treatment, advances in MRI technology and interpretation, and landmark studies or trials that have led to this exciting juncture. Herein, the authors delve into current state-of-the-art methods to assess response to treatment with MRI and endoscopy. Currently, these methods for avoiding surgery can be used to detect a complete clinical response in as many as 50% of patients with rectal cancer. Finally, the limitations of imaging and endoscopy and future challenges will be discussed.

Predicting Factors of Complete Pathological Response in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Background: Current treatment of choice for locally advanced rectal cancer is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neo-CRT) followed by surgical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy. Some patients may experience complete pathological response (cPR) after the neoadjuvant treatment. However, the predicting factors are still debated. Methods: In this registry-based retrospective cohort study, 258 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were included. Patients were categorized into two groups with or without cPR. Logistic regression analysis was recruited to investigate the odds ratio for all independent variables, and those with significant results were included in multivariate regression analysis. Results: Achievement of cPR was 21.3%. The odds ratio of cPR was significantly lower when the tumor distance from the anal verge was>10 centimeters (OR=0.24, P=0.040). Also, the odds of cPR with N1 involvement in comparison with N0 involvement decreased for 0.41 (P=0.043). It was also true for patients with N2 involvement in comparison with N0 involvement (OR=0.31, P=0.031). Higher odds ratio of cPR was observed in patients who underwent surgery in>12 weeks after neo-CRT (OR=2.9, P=0.022). Furthermore, the odds of cPR decreased for 0.9 with increasing in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (P=0.044). Conclusion: Patients with rectal cancer in clinical stage II or lower, without the involvement of the lymphatic system at diagnosis, and with tumors located in the lower parts of the rectum, with lower levels of CEA, and longer duration between neo-CRT and surgery were more likely to achieve cPR after neo-CRT. With the current knowledge, the "wait and watch policy" is still debated and needs to be defined more precisely by upcoming studies.

Nonoperative Management for Rectal Cancer

The treatment algorithm for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has increased in complexity over the past 10 years. Nonoperative management (NOM) for rectal cancer in patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy has been gaining acceptance as a potential treatment option for selected LARC patients. The current challenge is to accurately select the patients with an apparent cCR, thereby correctly identifying those would-be appropriate candidates for a NOM strategy. NOM should be part of the treatment discussion of LARC, considering increasing rates of cCR, patient preference, potential quality of life gains, and the potential avoidance of surgical morbidity.

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.

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.

KRAS mutation is predictive for poor prognosis in rectal cancer patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between KRAS mutation and prognosis in rectal cancer patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

Literature was searched in the databases including Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), and MEDLINE (PubMed) from inception to December 16, 2020. The keywords "rectal cancer" or "rectal carcinoma" or "rectal adenocarcinoma" and "KRAS" and "neoadjuvant" were used for preliminary literature retrieval. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated for the KRAS mutation and clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), pathologic complete remission (pCR), downstaging of T stages and tumor stages, as well as improvements in tumor regression grading (TRG). Publication bias was assessed by the funnel plots.

RESULTS

A total of 16 articles were included for eligibility. The total number of patients was 3674 cases, with an incidence of KRAS gene mutation of 36.6% (1346/3674). Meta-analysis showed that the pooled OR for KRAS mutation on OS was 1.33 (95%CI: 113-1.56). Consistently, results also indicated that the KRAS mutant was related to the poor DFS (pooled OR=1.55, 95%CI: 1.19-2.02). However, KRAS mutation is not related to the PCR (pooled OR= 0.71, 95%CI: 0.44-1.14), downstaging in T stages (pooled OR= 0.66, 95%CI: 0.42-1.06), tumor stages (pooled OR= 1.18, 95%CI: 0.78-1.78, I2=12.9%), as well as improvement in TRG grades (pooled OR= 0.84, 95%CI: 0.59-1.20).

CONCLUSION

KRAS mutation is a predictor for the poor prognosis of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer, but it is not related to the responses of tumors after treatment.

Oncologic comparison between nonradical management and total mesorectal excision in good responders after chemoradiotherapy in patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer

Purpose

This study was performed to compare the oncologic outcomes between nonradical management and total mesorectal excision in good responders after chemoradiotherapy.

Methods

We analyzed 75 patients, who underwent 14 watch-and-wait, 30 local excision, and 31 total mesorectal excision, in ycT0-1N0M0 based on magnetic resonance imaging after chemoradiotherapy for advanced mid-to-low rectal cancer in 3 referral hospitals. The nonradical management group underwent surveillance with additional sigmoidoscopy and rectal magnetic resonance imaging every 3-6 months within the first 2 years.

Results

Nonradical management group had more low-lying tumors (P < 0.001) and less lymph node metastasis based on magnetic resonance imaging (P = 0.004). However, cT stage, ycT, and ycN stage were not different between the 2 groups. With a median follow-up period of 64.7 months, the 5-year locoregional failure rate was higher in the nonradical management group than in the total mesorectal excision group (16.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.013). However, the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates of the nonradical management and total mesorectal excision groups were not different (95.2% vs. 93.5%, P = 0.467; 76.4% vs. 83.6%, P = 0.665; respectively).

Conclusion

This study shows that nonradical management for ycT0-1N0 mid-to-low rectal cancer may be an alternative treatment to total mesorectal excision under proper surveillance and management for oncologic events.

Could the conservative approach be considered safe in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer in case of a clinical near-complete or complete response? A retrospective analysis

Background

Conservative approach has emerged as an option for the management of rectal cancer (RC) patients with a near or complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). The aim of this study is to assess the impact of the conservative approach by comparing patients’ survival outcomes and quality of life with those who had surgical resection.

Methods

A single-institution and retrospective study including RC patients who reached a near complete or complete clinical response after nCRT from January 2010 to September 2019. Conservative approaches included local excision or watch and wait strategy; surgery approaches included anterior resection or abdominal-perineal resection.

Local regrowth (LR), overall survival, disease free survival, metastasis free survival and colostomy free survival were evaluated through Kaplan-Meier curves and compared trough log-rank tests. Quality of life was measured by the following validated questionnaires: EORTC QLC30, EORTC QLQ – CR29 and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale.

Results

Overall 157 patients were analyzed: 105 (66,9%) underwent radical surgery and 52 (33,1%) had a conservative approach. With a median follow-up of 51 months, 2 patients in the surgical group had a local recurrence and 8 in the conservative group had a LR, respectively. Distance metastasis occurred in 7 and 1 patients of surgical and conservative group, respectively. No differences were detected in terms of survival outcomes except for colostomy free survival (p: 0,01). The conservative group showed better intestinal (p < 0.01) and sexual (p: 0,04) function and emotional status (p: 0,02).

Conclusions

Conservative approach seems to be safe in terms of survival outcomes with a significant advantage on quality of life in RC patients who achieved clinical complete response after nCRT.

MRI Assessment of Complete Response to Preoperative Chemoradiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer: 2020 Guide for Practice from the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology

Objective

To provide an evidence-based guide for the MRI interpretation of complete tumor response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer using visual assessment on T2-weighted imaging (T2) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).

Materials and Methods

PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched on November 28, 2019 to identify articles on the following issues: 1) sensitivity and specificity of T2 or DWI for diagnosing pathologic complete response (pCR) and the criteria for MRI diagnosis; 2) MRI alone vs. MRI combined with other test(s) in sensitivity and specificity for pCR; and 3) tests to select patients for the watch-and-wait management. Eligible articles were selected according to meticulous criteria and were synthesized.

Results

Of 1615 article candidates, 55 eligible articles (for all three issues combined) were identified. Combined T2 and DWI performed better than T2 alone, with a meta-analytic summary sensitivity of 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43–0.77; I² = 80.60) and summary specificity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80–0.94; I² = 92.61) for diagnosing pCR. The criteria for the complete response on T2 in most studies had the commonality of remarkable tumor decrease to the absence of mass-like or nodular intermediate signal, although somewhat varied, as follows: (near) normalization of the wall; regular, thin, hypointense scar in the luminal side with (near) normal-appearance or homogeneous intermediate signal in the underlying wall; and hypointense thickening of the wall. The criteria on DWI were the absence of a hyperintense signal at high b-value (≥ 800 sec/mm²) in most studies. The specific algorithm to combine T2 and DWI was obscure in half of the studies. MRI combined with endoscopy was the most utilized means to select patients for the watch-and-wait management despite a lack of strong evidence to guide and support a multi-test approach.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis provide an evidence-based practical guide for MRI assessment of complete tumor response after CRT for rectal cancer.

Watch-and-Wait Compared to Operation for Patients with Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Trimodality therapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. There is evidence that surgery can be deferred in patients with complete response (CR) to nCRT, a strategy termed "watch-and-wait" (WW). We compare WW to surgery in patients with CR to nCRT.

STUDY DESIGN

We reviewed records of patients treated with nCRT for nonmetastatic rectal cancer at our institution. Complete endoscopic response (CER) was defined as negative digital rectal exam and negative endoscopy at the end of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Clinical complete response (cCR) was defined as CER with negative rectal MRI. Patients with CER refusing surgery were offered WW, which included strict surveillance with digital rectal exam and endoscopy.

RESULTS

From January 2015 through February 2019, 465 patients completed nCRT; 406 patients had response assessment, of which 95 (23%) had CER. Of these patients, 53 patients underwent WW and 42 patients had surgery. Median follow-up was 35 months. In the WW group, 3-year freedom from local regrowth was 85%. In the surgical and WW groups, 3-year overall survival, rectal cancer-specific survival, and freedom from nonregrowth recurrence were 100% vs 88% (p = 0.03), 100% vs 95% (p = 0.16), and 92% vs 85% (p = 0.36), respectively. Of the 6 WW patients with local regrowth, 5 (83%) eventually developed distant recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

WW in lieu of surgery appears to be a safe and feasible treatment approach for patients achieving CR to nCRT. Careful evaluation to confirm cCR after nCRT is valuable in selecting patients for WW.

Non-Operative Management Versus Total Mesorectal Excision for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer with Clinical Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy: a GRADE Approach by the Rectal Cancer Guidelines Writing Group of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM)

BACKGROUND

The standard approach for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). After nCRT 20% of patients achieve a clinical complete response (pCR) and could be treated with a non-operative management (NOM).

METHODS

The panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Guidelines on rectal cancer applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach addressing the following question: Should NOM vs. TME be used for patients with rectal cancer with clinical complete response after nCRT? Five outcomes were identified: disease-free survival (DFS), mortality, local recurrence, colostomy rate, and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the analysis. A higher risk of disease recurrence was observed in the NOM group compared to the TME group (RR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.08, 2.64) on the other hand, we observed a slightly positive but not significant effect on mortality of NOM (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.46, 1.45). Patients in the NOM group were more likely to experience local recurrence (RR = 5.37, 95% CI 2.56, 11.27) and patients in the TME group were more likely to have a permanent colostomy (RR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.08, 0.29). Only one study evaluated functional outcomes. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as very low.

CONCLUSIONS

NOM was found to correlate with a higher risk of local recurrence which did not translate in worse OS and a lower colostomy rate. Due to the paucity of evidences, no recommendations are possible. NOM remains an experimental treatment; thus, patients managed with NOM should be enrolled in clinical trials with a dedicated follow-up schedule.

Efficacy and safety of wait and see strategy versus radical surgery and local excision for rectal cancer with cCR response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a meta-analysis

Background

Neoadjuvant therapy can shrink tumors, increase anus preservation rate, and protect anal function. Radical surgery need cut off the diseased bowel, clean up the lymph nodes, and then restore bowel function. It could bring traumatic effect and poor postoperative quality of life to the patient. Local resection requires removal of the diseased bowel with circular negative margin. The surgical trauma is small, and the postoperative quality of life is good. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety between wait and see strategy (WS), radical surgery (RS), and local excision (LE) of rectal cancer patients with clinical complete response (cCR) response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and Wanfang databases to compare wait and see strategy with radical surgery and local excision for rectal cancer with cCR response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy up to March 2020. We collected the data of local recurrence, distant metastasis, cancer-related death, overall survival, and disease-free survival and used RevMan 5.0 to carry out the meta-analysis. Continuous data were evaluated by the standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and dichotomous data were evaluated by relative risks (ORs or RRs) with 95% CIs. We aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the three groups.

Results

Eleven English studies with 1131 patients were included. There were 412 patients in WS group, 678 patients in RS group, and 41 patients in LE group. WS group had a higher local recurrence rate than RS group (OR 7.32, 95% CI 3.58 to 14.95, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other data between the three groups.

Conclusion

Compared with the RS group, the WS group had an increased risk of local recurrence. However, the WS group had a similar DFS and OS compared with the RS group and the local excision group. Hence, we speculated that the WS group would have similar results as the surgery group for patients with cCR status.

Watch and wait approach in rectal cancer: Current controversies and future directions

According to the main international clinical guidelines, the recommended treatment for locally-advanced rectal cancer is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. However, doubts have been raised about the appropriate definition of clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy and the role of surgery in patients who achieve a cCR. Surgical resection is associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life (QoL), which is especially relevant given the favourable prognosis in this patient subset. Accordingly, there has been a growing interest in alternative approaches with less morbidity, including the organ-preserving watch and wait strategy, in which surgery is omitted in patients who have achieved a cCR. These patients are managed with a specific follow-up protocol to ensure adequate cancer control, including the early identification of recurrent disease. However, there are several open questions about this strategy, including patient selection, the clinical and radiological criteria to accurately determine cCR, the duration of neoadjuvant treatment, the role of dose intensification (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy), optimal follow-up protocols, and the future perspectives of this approach. In the present review, we summarize the available evidence on the watch and wait strategy in this clinical scenario, including ongoing clinical trials, QoL in these patients, and the controversies surrounding this treatment approach.

Nonsurgical Management of Rectal Cancer

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. Up to one third of patients achieve pathologic complete response (CR) with neoadjuvant therapy. Promising disease-free and overall survival outcomes have been reported in patients who achieve clinical CR after neoadjuvant therapy without surgical resection. Furthermore, patients who have local recurrence have acceptable disease control outcomes with salvage resection. With consideration of morbidities associated with surgical resection and similar clinical outcomes, interest in nonsurgical management of low rectal cancers has emerged. Randomized clinical trials are being conducted to evaluate a nonsurgical approach in rectal cancer. Lack of consensus on the definition of clinical CR, molecular biomarkers, and standardized nonsurgical management protocols is a significant barrier for routine clinical implementation of a nonsurgical management approach. This article aims to provide a concise review of the clinical experience and practical approach to the nonsurgical management of locoregional rectal adenocarcinoma.

Magnetic Resonance Guided Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: Expanding Opportunities for Non-Operative Management

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in men and the second most common in women worldwide, and the incidence is increasing among younger patients. 30% of these malignancies arise in the rectum. Patients with rectal cancer have historically been managed with preoperative radiation, followed by radical surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy, with permanent colostomies in up to 20% of patients. Beginning in the early 2000s, non-operative management (NOM) of rectal cancer emerged as a viable alternative to radical surgery in select patients. Efforts have been ongoing to optimize neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer, thereby increasing the number of patients potentially eligible to forgo radical surgery. Magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) has recently emerged as a treatment modality capable of intensifying preoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer patients. This technology may also predict which patients will achieve a complete response to preoperative therapy, thereby allowing for more appropriate selection of patients for NOM. The present work seeks to illustrate the potential role MRgRT could play in personalizing rectal cancer treatment thus expanding the role of NOM in rectal cancer.

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.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Local Excision in Rectal Cancer

The goal of treatment for early stage rectal cancer is to optimize oncologic outcome while minimizing effect of treatment on quality of life. The standard of care treatment for most early rectal cancers is radical surgery alone. Given the morbidity associated with radical surgery, local excision for early rectal cancers has been explored as an alternative approach associated with lower rates of morbidity. The American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria presented in this manuscript are evidence-based guidelines for the use of local excision in early stage rectal cancer that include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) used by a multidisciplinary expert panel to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners and patients who desire information regarding the use of local excision in rectal cancer.

"Watch and wait" approach in rectal cancer patients following complete clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not compromise oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Although standart treatment for non-metastatic locally advanced rectal cancer includes neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgical resection, patients who have achieved complete clinical response can be followed up without surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2010 and 2016, 61 patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for low rectal cancer. Those patients who achieved clinical complete response were included in the "watch and wait" protocol and did not receive surgery. The remaining patients underwent radical surgery and some of these were diagnosed as having complete response pathologically. This study compared the oncological results of clinically complete responders with those patients defined as pathologically tumor-free.

RESULTS

Seven patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were re-staged as having complete clinical response and included in the "watch and wait" approach protocol. The 5-year disease free survival was 100%. Mean follow-up was 63 months and the mean age was 57.3. Fifty-four patients underwent radical surgery and 7 of them were diagnosed as having pathological complete response. The 5-year survival was 100%. Mean follow-up was 56 months and the mean age was 50.6. All patients except one are alive without tumor recurrence in the surgery group. However, those who received surgery experienced significant morbidities due to their surgery.

CONCLUSION

The oncological results of the "watch and wait" approach patients were no different from the patients who received radical surgery and were diagnosed as having pathological complete response. Those patients in particular who required abdomino-perineal resection before chemoradiation should be informed about this approach if they have achieved complete response clinically.

Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes After High-Dose Chemoradiation Therapy for Nonsurgical Management of Distal Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Surgery is standard treatment for rectal cancer, but neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) may result in clinical complete response (cCR) in select patients, allowing for nonsurgical management (NSM). Prospective studies of NSM strategies are sparse, however, and long-term data on quality of life (QoL) are limited. We conducted a single-arm phase 2 trial of high-dose CRT for NSM of distal rectal cancer; we report secondary long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs), local regrowth, and overall survival in patients managed nonsurgically.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty-one patients with resectable, T2 or T3, N0-N1, low adenocarcinoma received 65 Gy (intensity modulated radiation therapy, brachytherapy boost) and oral tegafur-uracil. Patients with cCR 6 weeks after treatment (clinical examination, magnetic resonance imaging, biopsy) were referred for observation and followed closely with clinical examination, endoscopy, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, and PROs for 5 years. Overall colorectal cancer-specific QoL and specific symptom scores were evaluated at baseline and in follow-up and compared between time points. Local regrowth was estimated using cumulative incidence and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Forty patients achieved cCR after treatment; 29 were in follow-up at 24 months, 21 at 36 months, and 20 at 60 months. PRO questionnaire completion rates were 90% at 24 months, 100% at 36 months, and 85% at 60 months for patients still in follow-up. Average QoL score did not differ between baseline (median 11.1) and 24 months (13.7), 48 months (11.1), or 60 months (6.9). Only rectal bleeding deteriorated from baseline, with bowel- and bladder-related symptom scores otherwise unchanged in follow-up. At median follow-up of 5.0 years, local regrowth rate and overall survival were 31% (95% confidence interval, 15%-47%) and 85% (95% confidence interval, 75%-97%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term follow-up after NSM of distal rectal cancer showed excellent general colorectal cancer QoL and local symptom scores. Our study results indicate that high-dose CRT followed by organ preservation might be an alternative to standard treatment.

Can less be more? Organ preservation strategies in the management of rectal cancer

Background

Total mesorectal excision (tme) is the current standard of care for the treatment of rectal cancer. However, that surgery is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Clinicians and patients are seeking alternatives to radical resection. Currently, prevalent organ-sparing strategies under investigation include local excision and nonoperative management (nom).

Methods

We reviewed the current evidence in the literature to create an overview of the use of transanal endoscopic surgery and watch-and-wait strategies in the modern management of rectal cancer.

Results

Compared with radical resection, transanal endoscopic surgery in patients with early rectal cancer (cT1) having favourable histopathologic features is associated with an increased risk of local recurrence, but no difference in 5-year survival. In patients with T2 or early T3 cancer, strategies that use neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy as adjuncts to local excision are under evaluation. Nonoperative management is a new option for patients who experience a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (ncrt). The selection criteria that will appropriately identify patients for whom nom will succeed are not established.

Conclusions

Local excision is appropriate for early rectal cancer with favourable histopathologic features. Although organ-preserving strategies are promising, the quality of the evidence to date is insufficient to replace the current standard care in most patients. Patients should be offered nom in the safe setting of a clinical trial or registry. Rigorous follow-up, including endoscopy and imaging at frequent intervals is recommended when radical resection is forgone.

Radiomics Model Based on Non-Contrast CT Shows No Predictive Power for Complete Pathological Response in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

(1) Background: About 15% of the patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer exhibit pathological complete response (pCR). The surgical approach is associated with major risks as well as a potential negative impact on quality of life and has been questioned in the past. Still, there is no evidence of a reliable clinical or radiological surrogate marker for pCR. This study aims to replicate previously reported response predictions on the basis of non-contrast CT scans on an independent patient cohort. (2) Methods: A total of 169 consecutive patients (126 males, 43 females) that underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and consecutive total mesorectal excision were included. The solid tumors were segmented on CT scans acquired on the same scanner for treatment planning. To quantify intratumoral 3D spatial heterogeneity, 1819 radiomics parameters were derived per case. Feature selection and algorithmic modeling were performed to classify pCR vs. non-pCR cases. A random forest model was trained on the dataset using 4-fold cross-validation. (3) Results: The model achieved an accuracy of 87%, higher than previously reported. Correction for the imbalanced distribution of pCR and non-PCR cases (13% and 87% respectively) was applied, yielding a balanced accuracy score of 0.5%. An additional experiment to classify a computer-generated random data sample using the same model led to comparable results. (4) Conclusions: There is no evidence of added value of a radiomics model based on on-contrast CT scans for prediction of pCR in rectal cancer. The imbalance of the target variable could be identified as a key issue, leading to a biased model and optimistic predictions.

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer management

Thirty per cent of all colorectal tumours develop in the rectum. The location of the rectum within the bony pelvis and its proximity to vital structures presents significant therapeutic challenges when considering neoadjuvant options and surgical interventions. Most patients with early rectal cancer can be adequately managed by surgery alone. However, a significant proportion of patients with rectal cancer present with locally advanced disease and will potentially benefit from down staging prior to surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy involves a variety of options including radiotherapy, chemotherapy used alone or in combination. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy in rectal cancer has been shown to be effective in reducing tumour burden in advance of curative surgery. The gold standard surgical rectal cancer management aims to achieve surgical removal of the tumour and all draining lymph nodes, within an intact mesorectal package, in order to minimise local recurrence. It is critically important that all rectal cancer cases are discussed at a multidisciplinary meeting represented by all relevant specialties. Pre-operative staging including CT thorax, abdomen, pelvis to assess for distal disease and magnetic resonance imaging to assess local involvement is essential. Staging radiology and MDT discussion are integral in identifying patients who require neoadjuvant radiotherapy. While Neoadjuvant radiotherapy is potentially beneficial it may also result in morbidity and thus should be reserved for those patients who are at a high risk of local failure, which includes patients with nodal involvement, extramural venous invasion and threatened circumferential margin. The aim of this review is to discuss the role of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in the management of rectal cancer.

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.

Organ Preservation Strategies After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Standard use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, total mesorectal excision, and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer has tremendously improved oncologic outcomes over the past several decades. However, these improvements come with costs of significant morbidity and poor quality of life. Along with developments in imaging techniques, clinical experience and evidence have identified a certain subgroup of patients that have exceptionally good clinical outcomes while preserving quality of life. Driven by patient demand and interest in preserving quality of life, numerous organ preservation treatment strategies for managing rectal cancer are rapidly evolving. Herein, the flow of research in organ preservation strategies and counter arguments are discussed.

Non-operative treatment outcome for rectal cancer patient with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Among rectal cancer patients, some of good responders after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) are considered for non-operative treatments to avoid postoperative morbidities and permanent stoma. However, oncologic feasibility of non-operative treatment has not been fully understood.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2017, we retrospectively reviewed patient's records who had lower or mid rectal cancer and diagnosed to clinical complete response by magnetic resonance imaging after nCRT. Clinical differences and oncologic outcomes were compared among Radical surgery (RS), Local excision (LE) and Wait-and-see (WS) group.

RESULTS

Number of 129, 25, 15 patients included to RS, LE, WS groups. Local recurrence was frequent type of recurrence in both of LE and WS group (RS; 31.3%, LE; 80%, WS; 66.7%), and many patients in WS group omitted salvage treatment (RS; 75%, LE; 100%, WS; 33.3%). 5-years local-recurrence/disease-free survival rate (LRFS, DFS) between RS and LE were similar between each group, but WS showed significantly inferior outcomes than that of RS (LRFS; p = 0.001, DFS; p = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, WS protocol (OR; 7.163, 95% CI; 1.995-25.715) and cT4 stage (OR; 8.206, 95% CI; 1.596-42.198) were independent factors for LRFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Wait-and-see group showed high rate of rejection of salvage treatments for recurrence, and poor oncologic outcomes. However, recent low-level evidences reported favorable outcome of WS protocol when salvage treatment was followed after recurrence. It seems that the application of WS protocol should be postponed until the results of randomized-controlled trials are available. Local excision seems to be good alternative option to radical surgery when salvage treatment is followed.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on outcomes of salvage therapy in patients with tumour recurrence during 'watch and wait' in rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

The 'watch and wait' approach has recently emerged as an alternative approach for managing patients with complete clinical response in rectal cancer. However, less is understood whether the intervention is associated with a favourable outcome among patients who require salvage therapy following local recurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive systematic search was performed using EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, Journals@Ovid as well as hand searches; published between 2004 and 2018, to identify studies where outcomes of patients undergoing watch and wait were compared with conventional surgery. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. The main outcome was relative risks for overall and disease specific mortality in salvage therapy.

RESULTS

Nine eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Of 248 patients who followed the watch and wait strategy, 10.5% had salvage therapy for recurrent disease. No statistical heterogeneity was found in the results. The relative risk of overall mortality in the salvage therapy group was 2.42 (95% confidence interval 0.96-6.13) compared with the group who had conventional surgery, but this was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The relative risk of disease specific mortality in salvage therapy was 2.63 (95% confidence interval 0.81-8.53).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that there was no significant difference in overall and disease specific mortality in patients who had salvage treatment following recurrence of disease in the watch and wait group compared with the standard treatment group. However, future research into the oncological safety of salvage treatment is needed.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of pT2 rectal cancer spread and recurrence pattern: Implications for target design in radiation therapy for organ preservation

BACKGROUND

There are no guidelines on clinical target volume (CTV) delineation for cT2 rectal cancer treated with organ preservation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the extent of distal mesorectal (DMS) and distal intramural spread (DIS), the risk of lateral lymph node (LLN) metastases in pT2 tumours, and regional recurrence pattern after organ preservation.

RESULTS

The rate of DMS > 1 cm was 1.9% (95% CI: 0.4-5.4%), maximum extent: 1.3 cm. The rate of DIS > 0.5 cm was 4.7% (95% CI: 1.3-11.5%), maximum extent: 0.8 cm. The rate of LLN metastases was 8.2% (95% CI: 6.7-9.9%) for tumours below or at peritoneal reflexion and 0% for higher tumours. Regional nodal recurrences alone were recorded in 1.0% (95% CI: 0.5-1.7%) of patients after watch-and-wait and in 2.1% (95% CI: 1.2-3.4%) after preoperative radiotherapy and local excision. Thus, the following rules for CTV delineation are proposed: caudal border 1.5 cm from the tumour to account for DMS or 1 cm to account for DIS, whichever is more caudal; cranial border at S2/S3 interspace; inclusion of LLN for tumours at or below peritoneal reflexion. A planning study was performed in eight patients to compare dose-volume parameters obtained using these rules to that obtained using current guidelines for advanced cancers. The proposed rules led to a mean 18% relative reduction of planning target volume, which resulted in better sparing of organs-at-risk.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests a smaller CTV for cT2 tumours than the current guidelines designed for advanced cancers.

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Function Predicts Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Purpose

The presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in tumors is superior to conventional pathologic staging in predicting patient outcome. However, their presence does not define TIL functionality. Here we developed an assay that tests TIL cytotoxicity in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer before definitive treatment, identifying those who will obtain a pathologic complete response (pCR). We also used the assay to demonstrate the rescue of TIL function after checkpoint inhibition blockade (CIB).

Patients and Methods

Thirty-four consecutive patients were identified initially, with successful completion of the assay before surgery in those 17 patients who underwent full treatment. An in vitro cytotoxic assay of rectal cancer tumoroids cocultured with patient-matched TILs was established and validated. Newly diagnosed patients were recruited with pretreatment biopsy specimens processed within 1 month. Evaluation of TIL-mediated tumoroid lysis was performed by measuring the mean fluorescence intensity of cell death marker, propidium iodide. CIB (anti–programmed cell death protein 1 [anti–PD-1] antibody) response was also assessed in a subset of patient specimens.

Results

Six of the 17 patients achieved an objective pCR on final evaluation of the resected specimen after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Cytotoxic killing identified the pCR group with a higher mean fluorescence intensity (27,982 [95% CI, 25,340 to 30,625]) compared with the non-pCR cohort (12,428 [95% CI, 9,434 to 15,423]; p < .001). Assessment of the effectiveness of CIB revealed partial restoration of cytotoxicity in TILs with increased PD-1 expression with anti–PD-1 antibody exposure.

Conclusion

Evaluating TIL function can be undertaken within weeks of the diagnostic biopsy, affording the potential to alter patient management decisions and refine selection for a watch-and-wait protocol. This cytotoxic assay also has the potential to serve as a platform to assist in the additional development of CIB.

Factors affecting local regrowth after watch and wait for patients with a clinical complete response following chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer (InterCoRe consortium): an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with rectal cancer who achieve clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, watch and wait is a novel management strategy with potential to avoid major surgery. Study-level meta-analyses have reported wide variation in the proportion of patients with local regrowth. We did an individual participant data meta-analysis to investigate factors affecting occurrence of local regrowth.

METHODS

We updated search results of a recent systematic review by searching MEDLINE and Embase from Jan 1, 2016, to May 5, 2017, and used expert knowledge to identify published studies reporting on local regrowth in patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait after clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We restricted studies to those that defined clinical complete response using criteria equivalent to São Paulo benchmarks (ie, absence of residual ulceration, stenosis, or mass within the rectum on clinical and endoscopic examination). The primary outcome was 2-year cumulative incidence of local regrowth, estimated with a two-stage random-effects individual participant data meta-analysis. We assessed the effects of clinical and treatment factors using Cox frailty models, expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). From these models, we derived percentage differences in mean θ as an approximation of the effect of measured covariates on between-centre heterogeneity. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017070934.

FINDINGS

We obtained individual participant data from 11 studies, including 602 patients enrolled between March 11, 1990, and Feb 13, 2017, with a median follow-up of 37·6 months (IQR 25·0-58·7). Ten of the 11 datasets were judged to be at low risk of bias. 2-year cumulative incidence of local regrowth was 21·4% (random-effects 95% CI 15·3-27·6), with high levels of between-study heterogeneity (I²=61%). We noted wide between-centre variation in patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics. We found some evidence that increasing cT stage was associated with increased risk of local regrowth (random-effects HR per cT stage 1·40, 95% CI 1·00-1·94; p_trend=0·048). In a subgroup of 459 patients managed after 2008 (when pretreatment staging by MRI became standard), 2-year cumulative incidence of local regrowth was 19% (95% CI 13-28) for stage cT1 and cT2 tumours, 31% (26-37) for cT3, and 37% (21-60) for cT4 (random-effects HR per cT stage 1·50, random-effects 95% CI 1·03-2·17; p_trend=0·0330). We estimated that measured factors contributed 4·8-45·3% of observed between-centre heterogeneity.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with rectal cancer and clinical complete response after chemoradiotherapy managed by watch and wait, we found some evidence that increasing cT stage predicts for local regrowth. These data will inform clinician-patient decision making in this setting. Research is needed to determine other predictors of a sustained clinical complete response.

FUNDING

None.

'Watch and wait' in rectal cancer: summary of the current evidence

BACKGROUND

The management of rectal cancer has evolved considerably over the last few decades with increasing use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Complete clinical response (cCR) and even complete pathological response (pCR) have been noted in a proportion of patients who had surgery after nCRT. This raises the concern that we may have been 'over-treating' some of these patients and lead to an increasing interest in 'watch and wait' (W&W) approach for patients who had cCR to avoid the morbidity associated with rectal surgery.

METHODS

A review of the literature in English pertaining to rectal cancer in the context of W&W, organ preservation and active surveillance.

RESULTS

Evidence available to support W&W approach comes from non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no current consensus on patients' selection criteria, lack of viable predictors of both cCR and pCR and lack of universal definitions of cCR and pCR. Also, there is no agreed protocol for disease surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Even though there has been increasing reports on the outcomes of W&W in rectal cancer, the current evidence cannot support its routine use in clinical practice. This approach should be used in clinical trials settings or after thorough counselling with the patient on the outcomes of various treatment options.

'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.

Watch-and-Wait as a Therapeutic Strategy in Rectal Cancer

Purpose of Review

Pathological complete response is seen in approximately one fifth of rectal cancer patients following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Since these patients have excellent oncological outcomes, there has been a rapidly growing interest in organ preservation for those who develop a clinical complete response. We review the watch-and-wait strategy and focus on all aspects of this hot topic, including who should be considered for this approach, how should we identify treatment response and what are the expected outcomes.

Recent Findings

The major challenges in interpreting the data on watch-and-wait are the significant heterogeneity of patients selected for this approach and of methods employed to identify them. The evidence available comes mostly from retrospective cohort studies, but has shown good oncological outcomes, including the rate of successful salvage surgery, locoregional control and overall survival.

Summary

There is currently not enough and not robust enough evidence to support watch-and-wait as a standard approach, outside a clinical trial, for patients achieving clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Furthermore, there is a lack of data on long-term outcomes. However, the results we have so far are promising, and there is therefore an urgent need for randomised control studies such as the TRIGGER trial to confirm the safety of this strategy.

Are We Predicting Disease Progress of the Rectal Cancer Patients without Surgery after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy?

Purpose

There are patients who do not undergo surgery, regardless of tumor response for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in rectal cancer. However, there have been few reports focused on how oncologic outcomes are worse in these patients. We sought to investigate oncologic outcomes for these non-operated patients with rectal cancer after nCRT.

Materials and Methods

A total of 1,063 records of patients with rectal cancer who were treated with nCRT from January 2002 to December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. We categorized patients into the non-operated group (n=77), transanal local excision (TLE) group (n=54), ortotal mesorectal excision (TME) group (n=932) and compared each group using propensity score matching.

Results

In the non-operated group, the most common reason for no surgery was patient refusal (n=64). Eleven patients were considered to have achieve clinical complete response (cCR), which was an independent prognostic factor of progression-free survival (p=0.045). In patients with disease progression in the non-operated group, the overall survival did not improved according to salvage treatments (p=0.451). The non-operated group showed worse survivals compared to the TLE or TME group before and after matching (p < 0.001). This finding was also noted in the analysis of survival only in patients with cCR.

Conclusion

In this study, non-operated patients did not secure oncologic safety regardless of cCR after nCRT. Our results suggest that a non-operative management must be carefully considered even if cCR is achieved.

A watch-and-wait approach for locally advanced rectal cancer after a clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A watch-and-wait approach for patients with clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation could avoid the morbidity of conventional surgery for rectal cancer. However, the safety of this approach is unclear. We synthesised the evidence for watch-and-wait as a treatment for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the grey literature (up to June 28, 2016) for studies of patients with rectal adenocarcinoma managed by watch-and-wait after complete clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. We determined the proportion of 2-year local regrowth after watch-and-wait. We assessed non-regrowth recurrence, cancer-specific mortality, disease-free survival, and overall survival from studies comparing patients who had watch-and-wait versus those who had radical surgery after detection of clinical complete response or versus patients with pathological complete response.

FINDINGS

We identified 23 studies including 867 patients with median follow-up of 12-68 months. Pooled 2-year local regrowth was 15·7% (95% CI 11·8-20·1); 95·4% (95% CI 89·6-99·3) of patients with regrowth had salvage therapies. There was no significant difference between patients managed with watch-and-wait after a clinical complete response and patients with pathological complete response identified at resection with respect to non-regrowth recurrence (risk ratio [RR] 1·46, 95% CI 0·70-3·05) or cancer-specific mortality (RR 0·87, 95% CI 0·38-1·99). Although there was no significant difference in overall survival between groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·35-1·51), disease-free survival was better in the surgery group (HR 0·47, 95% CI 0·28-0·78). We found no significant difference between patients managed with watch-and-wait and patients with clinical complete response treated with surgery in terms of non-regrowth recurrence (RR 0·58, 95% CI 0·18-1·90), cancer-specific mortality (RR 0·58, 95% CI 0·06-5·84), disease-free survival (HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·20-1·60), or overall survival (HR 3·91, 95% CI 0·57-26·72).

INTERPRETATION

Most patients treated by watch-and-wait avoid radical surgery and of those who have regrowth almost all have salvage therapy. Although we detected no significant differences in non-regrowth cancer recurrence or overall survival in patients treated with watch-and-wait versus surgery, few patients have been studied and more prospective studies are needed to confirm long-term safety.

FUNDING

None.

Wait and see approach for rectal cancer with a clinically complete response after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer patients with a pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) have a better prognosis compared to those without a pCR. Therefore, the "Wait and See" (W&S) approach in those who achieved clinically complete response (cCR) after CCRT was introduced as an alternative modality to the total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcomes between W&S and TME via meta-analysis.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search on January 14, 2016, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus. In addition, the references of all articles obtained were searched manually. The qualities of each study were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. The main outcomes were recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) for the recurrence and survival rates, respectively.

RESULTS

The RR of patients whose initial recurrences was local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), LR + DM, or overall recurrences were 0.18, 1.00, 0.61, and 0.49, respectively. There was no heterogeneity in the results. The HR of DFS was 0.59 and indicated that DFS in the TME group was superior compared with that in the W&S group. The OS has no significant difference between the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the W&S approach seemed feasible for rectal cancer patients with a cCR after neoadjuvant CCRT, concrete evidence obtained in well-controlled randomized trials with a long-term follow-up is required to validate potential treatment options.

Nonoperative Management or 'Watch and Wait' for Rectal Cancer with Complete Clinical Response After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy: A Critical Appraisal

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in nonoperative management (NOM) for rectal cancer with complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the available data on NOM, with the intention of formulating standardized protocols on which to base future investigations.

METHODS

A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. A highly sensitive literature search identified all relevant studies published between January 2004 and December 2016. Data extraction and quality assessment was performed independently by two authors, and resolved by consensus with a third reviewer.

RESULTS

In total, 15 studies, including 920 patients, met the inclusion criteria; 575 (62.5%) of these patients underwent NOM after cCR, with the remaining patients forming a surgical control group. The weighted mean follow-up was 39.4 (12.7) months in the NOM group and 39.8 (5.1) months in the surgery group. The pooled regrowth rate in the NOM group was 21.3% at a mean of 15.6 (7.0) months. Surgical salvage was possible and was undertaken in 93.2% of these patients. Overall survival in the NOM group was 91.7%, while disease-free survival was 82.7%. For the comparison proctectomy group, pooled rates of local recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival were 8.4, 92.4, and 87.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

NOM may be a feasible option for surgically eligible rectal cancer patients with cCR after nCRT. Before such a strategy can be widely implemented, further prospective data are required with standardized definitions, diagnostic criteria, and management protocols, with an emphasis on shared patient-provider decision making and patient-centered outcomes.

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.