Neoadjuvant volumetric modulated arc therapy in rectal cancer and the correlation of pathological response with diffusion-weighted MRI and apoptotic markers

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society on Appropriate Use Criteria for Nonoperative Management of Rectal Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Guidelines

For patients with rectal cancer, the standard approach of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery (trimodality therapy) is associated with significant long-term toxicity and/or colostomy for most patients. Patient options focused on quality of life (QOL) have dramatically improved, but there remains limited guidance regarding comparative effectiveness. This systematic review and associated guidelines evaluate how various treatment strategies compare to each other in terms of oncologic outcomes and QOL. Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology were used to search for prospective and retrospective trials and meta-analyses of adequate quality within the Ovid Medline database between January 1, 2012, and June 15, 2023. These studies informed the expert panel, which rated the appropriateness of various treatments in 6 clinical scenarios through a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi). The search process yielded 197 articles that advised voting. Increasing data have shown that nonoperative management (NOM) and primary surgery result in QOL benefits noted over trimodality therapy without detriment to oncologic outcomes. For patients with rectal cancer for whom total mesorectal excision would result in permanent colostomy or inadequate bowel continence, NOM was strongly recommended as usually appropriate. Restaging with tumor response assessment approximately 8 to 12 weeks after completion of radiation therapy/chemoradiation therapy was deemed a necessary component of NOM. The panel recommended active surveillance in the setting of a near-complete or complete response. In the setting of NOM, 54 to 56 Gy in 27 to 31 fractions concurrent with chemotherapy and followed by consolidation chemotherapy was recommended. The panel strongly recommends primary surgery as usually appropriate for a T3N0 high rectal tumor for which low anterior resection and adequate bowel function is possible, with adjuvant chemotherapy considered if N+. Recent data support NOM and primary surgery as important options that should be offered to eligible patients. Considering the complexity of multidisciplinary management, patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting, and therapy should be tailored to individual patient goals/values.

Comparison of percentage changes in quantitative diffusion parameters for assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of percentage changes in apparent diffusion coefficient (∆ADC%) and slow diffusion coefficient (∆D%) for assessing pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).

METHODS

A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed to retrieve related original studies. For each parameter (∆ADC% and ∆D%), we pooled the sensitivity, specificity and calculated the area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity among the studies on ∆ADC%.

RESULTS

15 original studies (804 patients with 805 lesions, 15 studies on ∆ADC%, 4 of the studies both on ∆ADC% and ∆D%) were included. pCR was observed in 213 lesions (26.46%). For the assessment of pCR, the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUROC of ∆ADC% were 0.83 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.76, 0.89), 0.74 (95% CI 0.66, 0.81), 0.87 (95% CI 0.83, 0.89), and ∆D% were 0.70 (95% CI 0.52, 0.84), 0.81 (95% CI 0.65, 0.90), 0.81 (95% CI 0.77, 0.84), respectively. In the four studies on the both metrics, ∆ADC% yielded an equivalent diagnostic performance (AUROC 0.80 [95% CI 0.76, 0.83]) to ∆D%, but lower than in the studies (n = 11) only on ∆ADC% (AUROC 0.88 [95% CI 0.85, 0.91]). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses showed no significant factors affecting heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis confirms that ∆ADC% could reliably evaluate pCR in patients with LARC after neoadjuvant therapy. ∆D% may not be superior to ∆ADC%, which deserves further investigation.