Better quality of life and reduced fecal incontinence in rectal cancer patients with the watch-and-wait follow-up strategy

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.

Delayed Surgery after Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer Does Not Lead to Impaired Quality of Life, Worry for Cancer, or Regret

Simple Summary

Rectal cancer patients with an initial (near) complete clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy can be repeatedly assessed to see if a complete response endures. Up to 75% of these patients are able to avoid surgery and its related complications. However, the remaining 25% who ‘fail’ will eventually have to undergo surgery. Although recent studies have shown that patients undergoing delayed surgery have promising surgical and oncological outcomes, it is not known how these patients fare in terms of quality of life. The aim of this study was to compare quality of life between these immediate and delayed surgery groups through validated questionnaires. Our study including 51 patients shows no difference in quality of life, worry for cancer, or decision regret. Therefore, from a quality of life perspective, this study supports a repeated response assessment strategy after chemoradiotherapy for rectal carcinoma to identify all complete responders.

Abstract

Non operative management of complete clinical responders after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer enjoys an increasing popularity because of the increased functional outcome results. Even a near complete response can evolve in a cCR, and therefore further delaying response assessment is accepted. However, up to 40% of patients will develop a regrowth and will eventually require delayed surgery. It is presently unknown if and to what extent quality of life of these patients is affected, compared to patients who undergo immediate surgery. Between January 2015-May 2020, 200 patients were treated with neoadjuvant therapy of whom 94 received TME surgery. Fifty-one (59%) of 87 alive patients returned the questionnaires: 33 patients who underwent immediate and 18 patients who underwent delayed surgery. Quality of life was measured through the QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29, and Cancer Worry Scale questionnaires. Regret to participate in repeated response assessment protocol was assessed through the Decision Regret Scale. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a ‘known groups comparison’ was performed to assess QLQ questionnaires validity in this sample. Higher mean physical function scores (89.2 vs. 77.6, p = 0.03) were observed in the immediate surgery group, which lost significance after correction for operation type (p = 0.25). Arousal for men was higher in the delayed surgery group (20.0 vs. 57.1, p = 0.02). There were no differences between surgical groups for the other questionnaire items. Worry for cancer was lower in the delayed surgery group (10.8 vs. 14.0, p = 0.21). Regret was very low (12–16%). EFA reproduced most QLQ C-30 and CR29 subscales with good internal consistency. Quality of life is not impaired in patients undergoing delayed TME surgery after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. Moreover, there is very low regret and no increase in worry for cancer. Therefore, from a quality of life perspective, this study supports a repeated response assessment strategy after CRTx for rectal carcinoma to identify all complete responders.