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

Vascular calcification and response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: an exploratory study

Purpose

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) may experience a clinical complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) and opt for non-operative management. Pathological factors that relate to NACRT response have been well described. Host factors associated with response, however, are poorly defined. Calcification of the aortoiliac (AC) vessels supplying the rectum may influence treatment response.

Methods

Patients with LARC having NACRT prior to curative surgery at Glasgow Royal Infirmary (GRI) and St Mark’s hospital (SMH) between 2008 and 2016 were identified. AC was scored on pre-treatment CT imaging. NACRT response was assessed using pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, tumour regression grades (TRGs), the NeoAdjuvant Rectal score and T-/N-downstaging. Associations were assessed using Chi-squared, Mantel–Haenszel and Fisher’s exact tests.

Results

Of 231 patients from GRI, 79 (34%) underwent NACRT for LARC. Most were male (58%), aged over 65 (51%) with mid- to upper rectal tumours (56%) and clinical T3/4 (95%), node-positive (77%) disease. pCR occurred in 10 patients (13%). Trends were noted between higher clinical T stage and poor response by Royal College of Pathologist’s TRG (p = 0.021) and tumour height > 5 cm and poor response by Mandard TRG (0.068). In the SMH cohort, 49 of 333 (15%) patients underwent NACRT; 8 (16%) developed a pCR. AC was not associated with NACRT response in either cohort.

Conclusions

AC was not associated with NACRT response in this cohort. Larger contemporary cohorts are required to better assess host determinants of NACRT response and develop predictive models to improve patient selection.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00432-021-03570-1.

A field strength independent MR radiomics model to predict pathological complete response in locally advanced rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Aim of this study was to develop a generalised radiomics model for predicting pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer patients using pre-CRT T2-weighted images acquired at a 1.5 T and a 3 T scanner.

METHODS

In two institutions, 195 patients were scanned: 136 patients were scanned on a 1.5 T MR scanner, 59 patients on a 3 T MR scanner. Gross tumour volumes were delineated on the MR images and 496 radiomic features were extracted, applying the intensity-based (IB) filter. Features were standardised with Z-score normalisation and an initial feature selection was carried out using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test: The most significant features at 1.5 T and 3 T were selected as main features. Several logistic regression models combining the main features with a third one selected by those resulting significant were elaborated and evaluated in terms of area under curve (AUC). A tenfold cross-validation was repeated 300 times to evaluate the model robustness.

RESULTS

Three features were selected: maximum fractal dimension with IB = 0-50, energy and grey-level non-uniformity calculated on the run-length matrix with IB = 0-50. The AUC of the model applied to the whole dataset after cross-validation was 0.72, while values of 0.70 and 0.83 were obtained when 1.5 T and 3 T patients were considered, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The model elaborated showed good performance, even when data from patients scanned on 1.5 T and 3 T were merged. This shows that magnetic field intensity variability can be overcome by means of selecting appropriate image features.

Pre-clinical modelling of rectal cancer to develop novel radiotherapy-based treatment strategies

Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy reduces local recurrence rates in locally advanced rectal cancer. 10-20% of patients undergo complete response to chemoradiotherapy, however, many patients show no response. The mechanisms underlying this are poorly understood; identifying molecular and immunological factors underpinning heterogeneous responses to chemoradiotherapy, will promote development of treatment strategies to improve responses and overcome resistance mechanisms. This review describes the advances made in pre-clinical modelling of colorectal cancer, including genetically engineered mouse models, transplantation models, patient derived organoids and radiotherapy platforms to study responses to chemoradiotherapy. Relevant literature was identified through the PubMed and MEDLINE databases, using the following keywords: rectal cancer; mouse models; organoids; neo-adjuvant treatment; radiotherapy; chemotherapy. By delineating the advantages and disadvantages of available models, we discuss how modelling techniques can be utilized to address current research priorities in locally advanced rectal cancer. We provide unique insight into the potential application of pre-clinical models in the development of novel neo-adjuvant treatment strategies, which will hopefully guide future clinical trials.

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.

Prognostic Role of Peripheral Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) and Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) in Patients with Rectal Cancer Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the predictive and prognostic role of pretreatment hematological parameters for tumor response and outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients undergoing surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

METHODS

From 2010 to 2016, 53 patients with LARC who underwent surgery following nCRT were analyzed. All hematological parameters were obtained from the initial blood tests performed before nCRT. The optimal cutoff values of significant hematological parameters for pathological tumor response (pTR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Patients have categorized into "good" and "poor" response groups according to their pathological results, and clinical-pathologic variables compared between the two groups. All survival analysis was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Uni-multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

In the ROC analysis, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) for OS and absolute platelet count and PLR for DFS were found as significant prognostic factors. In multivariate analysis, surgical margin, ypN stage, and elevated PLR were significantly associated with OS, and likewise, high PLR was found as an independent poor prognostic factor for DFS. The 5-year OS and DFS rates were worse in patients with high PLR group (82.3 vs. 47.3% for OS, p = 0.018 and 88.2 vs. 51.3% for DFS, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment high PLR is associated with worse OS and DFS in patients with rectal cancer. To use in daily practice, further studies are needed on its validation.

Radiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

This guideline reviews the evidence and provides recommendations for the indications and appropriate technique and dose of neoadjuvant radiation therapy (RT) in the treatment of localized rectal cancer.

METHODS

The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force to address 4 key questions focused on the use of RT in preoperative management of operable rectal cancer. These questions included the indications for neoadjuvant RT, identification of appropriate neoadjuvant regimens, indications for consideration of a nonoperative or local excision approach after chemoradiation, and appropriate treatment volumes and techniques. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and system for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength.

RESULTS

Neoadjuvant RT is recommended for patients with stage II-III rectal cancer, with either conventional fractionation with concurrent 5-FU or capecitabine or short-course RT. RT should be performed preoperatively rather than postoperatively. Omission of preoperative RT is conditionally recommended in selected patients with lower risk of locoregional recurrence. Addition of chemotherapy before or after chemoradiation or after short-course RT is conditionally recommended. Nonoperative management is conditionally recommended if a clinical complete response is achieved after neoadjuvant treatment in selected patients. Inclusion of the rectum and mesorectal, presacral, internal iliac, and obturator nodes in the clinical treatment volume is recommended. In addition, inclusion of external iliac nodes is conditionally recommended in patients with tumors invading an anterior organ or structure, and inclusion of inguinal and external iliac nodes is conditionally recommended in patients with tumors involving the anal canal.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on currently published data, the American Society for Radiation Oncology task force has proposed evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of RT for rectal cancer. Future studies will look to further personalize treatment recommendations to optimize treatment outcomes and quality of life.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Due to the increased uptake of rectal cancer screening and the increasing rates of complete clinical response to chemoradiotherapy, more early-stage and down-staged rectal cancers are being treated. This has triggered surgeons to question the necessity for proctectomy and its associated morbidity and consider local excision and organ preservation in selected cases. Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) has evolved as an oncologically safe yet cost-effective platform for local excision of rectal tumors using traditional laparoscopic instruments. This review highlights the recent advances and current role of TAMIS in the treatment of rectal cancer.

Conditional recurrence-free survival of clinical complete responders managed by watch and wait after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database: a retrospective, international, multicentre registry study

BACKGROUND

Watch and wait is a novel management strategy in patients with rectal cancer who have a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Surveillance of these patients is generally intensive, because local regrowth (with the potential for salvage) occurs in 25% of patients, and distant metastases occur in 10% of patients. It is unclear for how long these patients should be followed up. To address this issue, we did conditional survival modelling using the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD), which is a large-scale registry of patients with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy who have been managed by a watch-and-wait strategy.

METHODS

We did a retrospective, multicentre registry study using a dataset from the IWWD, which includes data from 47 clinics across 15 countries. We selected patients (aged ≥18 years) with rectal cancer who had a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who were subsequently managed by a watch-and-wait strategy between Nov 25, 1991, and Dec 31, 2015. Patients who had not achieved a clinical complete response or who had undergone any surgical procedure were excluded. The criteria used for defining a clinical complete response and the specific surveillance strategies were at the discretion of each participating centre. We used conditional survival modelling to estimate the probability of patients remaining free of local regrowth or distant metastasis for an additional 2 years after sustaining a clinical complete response or being distant metastasis-free for 1, 3, and 5 years from the date of the decision to commence watch and wait. The primary outcomes were conditional local regrowth-free survival at 3 years, and conditional distant metastasis-free survival at 5 years.

FINDINGS

We identified 793 patients in the IWWD with clinical complete response who had been managed by a watch-and-wait strategy. Median follow-up was 55·2 months (IQR 36·0-75·6). The probability of remaining free from local regrowth for an additional 2 years if a patient had a sustained clinical complete response for 1 year was 88·1% (95% CI 85·8-90·9), for 3 years was 97·3% (95·2-98·6), and for 5 years was 98·6% (97·6-100·0). The probably of remaining free from distant metastasis for a further 2 years in patients who had a clinical complete response without distant metastasis for 1 year was 93·8% (92·3-95·9), for 3 years was 97·8% (96·6-99·3), and for 5 years was 96·6% (94·0-98·9).

INTERPRETATION

These results suggest that the intensity of active surveillance in patients with rectal cancer managed by a watch-and-wait approach could be reduced if they achieve and maintain a clinical complete response within the first 3 years of starting this approach.

FUNDING

European Registration of Cancer Care, financed by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation Lisbon, the Bas Mulder Award, granted by the Alpe d'HuZes Foundation and the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.

Analysis of long-term oncological results of clinical versus pathological responses after neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer

Background

Nonoperative management after neoadjuvant treatment in low rectal cancer enables organ preservation and avoids surgical morbidity. Our aim is to compare oncological outcomes in patients with clinical complete response in watch and wait strategy with those who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery with a pathological complete response.

Methods

Patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment with clinical complete response in watch and wait approach (group 1, n = 26) and complete pathological responders (ypT0N0) after chemoradiotherapy and surgery (group 2, n = 22), between January 2011 and October 2018, were included retrospectively, and all of them evaluated and followed in a multidisciplinary team. A comparative analysis of local and distant recurrence rates and disease-free and overall survival between both groups was carried out. Statistical analysis was performed using log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards regression model, and Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results

No differences were found between patient’s demographic characteristics in both groups. Group 1: distance from the anal verge mean 5 cm (r = 1–12), 10 (38%) stage III, and 7 (27%) circumferential resection margin involved. The median follow-up of 47 months (r = 6, a 108). Group 2: distance from the anal verge mean 7 cm (r = 2–12), 16 (72%) stage III, and 13 (59%) circumferential resection margin involved. The median follow-up 49.5 months (r = 3, a 112). Local recurrence: 2 patients in group 1 (8.3%) and 1 in group 2 (4.8%) (p = 0.6235). Distant recurrence: 1 patient in group 1 (3.8%) and 3 in group 2 (19.2%) (p = 0.2237). Disease-free survival: 87.9% in group 1, 80% in group 2 (p = 0.7546). Overall survival: 86% in group 1 and 85% in group 2 (p = 0.5367).

Conclusion

Oncological results in operated patients with pathological complete response were similar to those in patients under a watch and wait strategy mediating a systematic and personalized evaluation. Surgery can safely be deferred in clinical complete responders.

Pathologic complete response is associated with decreased morbidity following rectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data regarding the relationship between pathologic complete response (pCR) and post-operative complications following rectal cancer resection. The objective of this study was to compare the rates of morbidity among pCR patients and non-pCR patients and to identify factors that predict pCR morbidity in a large national database.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) targeted proctectomy data (2016-18). Patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by proctectomy were included, and divided into pCR and non-pCR groups according to final stage. The groups were compared with Student's t-test, Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to estimate the association between pCR status and post-operative morbidity while adjusting for key covariates.

RESULTS

244 pCR and 1656 non-pCR patients were included. pCR patients had higher body mass index (28.1 ± 6.2 vs. 29.1 ± 5.9 kg/m²; p = 0.01) and lower pre-operative stage (T stage, p = 0.03; N stage, p < 0.001). The groups were equivalent with respect to surgical approach, type of surgery, and operative time (p > 0.05). Post-operative complications in pCR patients were less frequent than in non-pCR patients (23.0% vs. 29.3%; p = 0.04). This association was robust to adjustment for confounders in logistic regression, as patients with pCR had decreased odds of post-operative morbidity (OR 0.66, CI [0.43, 0.96], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

pCR is associated with fewer post-operative complications compared to non-pCR, suggesting that pCR is not a marker of severe pelvic fibrosis. This difference may be due to underlying tumor biology, and associated increased technical challenges resecting larger, non-responsive tumors.

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.

Nonoperative Management for T2 Low Rectal Cancer: A Western Approach

The possibility of organ preservation in early rectal cancer has gained popularity during recent years. Patients with early tumor stage and low risk for local recurrence do not usually require neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oncological reasons. However, these patients may be considered for chemoradiation exclusively for the purpose of achieving a complete clinical response and avoid total mesorectal excision. In addition, cT2 tumors may be more likely to develop complete response to neoadjuvant therapy and may constitute ideal candidates for organ-preserving strategies. In the setting where the use of chemoradiation is exclusively used to avoid major surgery, one should consider maximizing tumor response. In this article, we will focus on the rationale, indications, and outcomes of patients with early rectal cancer being treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation to achieve organ preservation by avoiding total mesorectal excision.

Recent advances in (chemo-)radiation therapy for rectal cancer: a comprehensive review

The role of radiation therapy in the treatment of (colo)-rectal cancer has changed dramatically over the past decades. Introduced with the aim of reducing the high rates of local recurrences after conventional surgery, major developments in imaging, surgical technique, systemic therapy and radiation delivery have now created a much more complex environment leading to a more personalized approach. Functional aspects including reduction of acute or late treatment-related side effects, sphincter or even organ-preservation and the unsolved problem of still high distant failure rates have become more important while local recurrence rates can be kept low in the vast majority of patients. This review summarizes the actual role of radiation therapy in different subgroups of patients with rectal cancer, including the current standard approach in different subgroups as well as recent developments focusing on neoadjuvant treatment intensification and/or non-operative treatment approaches aiming at organ-preservation.

Long-term outcomes of real world 'watch and wait' data for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

AIM

A 'watch and wait' (W&W) strategy after neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) remains controversial. Whilst encouraging short-term data exist, the strategy will be judged on long-term data. We present long-term, real-world UK data from a single National Health Service trust.

METHODS

An analysis was performed of a prospectively maintained W&W database over 9 years between 2010 and 2018. Outcome measures include incidence and time to regrowth and overall and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

We diagnosed 563 rectal cancers in 9 years. In all, 283 patients underwent rectal resection (50.3%). NACRT was used in 155 patients for margin-threatened tumours on staging MRI. Forty-nine patients (31.6%) experienced either a 'near complete' or a complete clinical response (cCR) at their 10 weeks post-NACRT assessment (MRI and endoscopy). The median age was 69 years (range 44-83), and the male to female ratio was 32:17. The median follow-up was 38 months (range 12-96). The median tumour distance from the anal verge was 7 cm (1-15 cm). Twenty-two patients had a cCR on initial assessment and 27 patients had a 'near' cCR. Of those 27 who experienced a 'near' cCR, 17 (63%) progressed to cCR on repeat assessment and 10 (37%) did not. Of these 10 patients, seven underwent standard surgical resection and three were unfit for surgery. R0 for the seven with delayed resection was 100%. Of 39 patients (22 cCR and 17 'near' cCR who progressed to cCR) (25.2% of those receiving NACRT), six patients experienced local regrowth (15.4%). The median time to local regrowth was 29 months (15-60 months). One of these six patients underwent salvage abdominoperineal resection, one was advised to have contact radiotherapy and four opted against surgery and also had contact radiotherapy. The overall survival was 100% at 2 years and 90% at 5 years. Disease-free survival was 90.47% at 2 years and 74.8% at 5 years.

CONCLUSION

A W&W treatment strategy was employed safely in this patient cohort with acceptable rates of local regrowth and survival.

Biology-and Location-Oriented Precision Treatment of Rectal Cancer: Present and Future

BACKGROUND

The surgical approach in rectal cancer treatment has evolved in the last decades and a standardized surgical technique for tumor resection - total mesorectal excision - has been established.

SUMMARY

In a multidisciplinary effort with the use of total mesorectal excision in combination with adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments to compliment surgery disease management can achieve excellent long-term local control and improved patient survival. Further improvements in imaging techniques and the ability to identify prognostic factors such as tumor regression, extramural venous invasion, and threatened margins have introduced the concept of decision-making based on preoperative staging information.

KEY MESSAGE

Therefore, in the modern era treatment algorithms are based on high-resolution imaging to plan neoadjuvant therapy and precision surgery followed by pathological and molecular analysis to stratify patients for the need of adjuvant chemotherapy. Despite excellent results with guideline structured treatment pathways, there is still a need to improve long-term results especially for individuals with locally advanced or metastatic tumors.

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.

Conditional Survival in Patients With Rectal Cancer and Complete Clinical Response Managed by Watch and Wait After Chemoradiation: Recurrence Risk Over Time

OBJECTIVE

Analyze conditional recurrence-free survival (cRFS) for rectal cancer patients with complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) managed nonoperatively after each year without recurrence.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Select patients with cCR after nCRT have been managed nonoperatively. Risk factors for local recurrence, the need for prolonged follow-up, and the risk of recurrence over time are not well defined.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients with rectal cancer cT2-4N0-2M0 treated with nCRT. Mean follow-up was 64 months. Patients who achieved cCR were managed nonoperatively. cRFS was used to investigate the evolution of recurrence-odds, as patients remain recurrence-free after completion of nCRT. Three-year cRFS was estimated at "x" years after completion of nCRT based on the formula cRFS3 = RFS(x+3)/RFS(x).

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-seven patients with cCR after nCRT were included. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 5 years were 81.9% (95% CI 74.0%-87.6%) and 60.4% (95% CI 52.5%-67.4%) respectively. Using cRFS estimates, the probability of remaining disease-free for an additional 3 years if the patient survived without disease at 1, 3, and 5 years, was 77.4% (95% CI 68.8%-83.8%), 91.0% (95% CI 81.9%-95.7%), and 94.3% (95% CI 82.9%-98.2%), respectively. In contrast, actuarial RFS rates for similar intervals were 79.1% (95% CI 72.5%-84.2%), 64.2% (95% CI 56.5%-70.8%), and 60.4% (95% CI 52.5%-67.4%). After 2 years disease-free, 3 year cRFS became similar for T2 and T3 cancers. In contrast, patients undergoing extended nCRT became less likely to develop recurrences only after initial 2 years of successful organ-preservation.

CONCLUSIONS

Conditional survival suggests that patients have significantly lower risks (≤10%) of developing recurrences after 2 years of achieving cCR following nCRT.

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.

Salvage Surgery With Organ Preservation for Patients With Local Regrowth After Watch and Wait: Is It Still Possible?

BACKGROUND

Patients with rectal cancer who achieve complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation have been managed nonoperatively. Thirty percent of these patients may develop a local regrowth, and salvage resection with radical surgery is usually recommended. However, selected patients could be offered additional organ preservation by local excision. We hypothesized that patients with baseline T2 who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (for the specific purpose of achieving a complete clinical response) were more likely to harbor recurrent disease at an earlier stage and amenable to organ preservation strategies (local excision) when compared with T3/T4 (undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oncologic reasons).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare patients with local regrowth requiring salvage resection according to their baseline stage.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients with nonmetastatic distal rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

SETTINGS

The study included 2 independent tertiary centers with institutional watch-and-wait organ preservation programs.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with distal rectal cancer (cT2-4N1-2M0) managed by watch and wait and local regrowth from 2 institutions were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Final pathologic features and surgical and oncologic outcomes were compared according to baseline staging.

RESULTS

A total of 73 of 257 patients experienced local regrowth. cT2 presented similar to ypT, ypN, R0, and abdominal perineal resection rates (p > 0.05) at the time of salvage when compared with cT3 to cT4. Patients with cT2 at baseline were more likely to undergo an organ preservation procedure for salvage (56.2% vs 26.5%; p = 0.03). Overall and disease-free survival after salvage were similar between groups irrespective of the type of surgery for the regrowth.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study, small sample size, and possible inaccurate baseline staging.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with baseline cT2 rectal cancer had similar pathologic stage at the time of recurrence, these patients were more likely to continue an organ preservation pathway after local regrowth through transanal local excision when compared with cT3 to cT4. Despite differences in the use of radical salvage resection, there were no differences in oncologic outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B254. CIRUGÍA DE RESCATE CON PRESERVACIÓN DE ORGANO PARA PACIENTES CON RECIDIVA LOCAL LUEGO DE WATCH & WAIT: ¿SIGUE SIENDO POSIBLE?: Los pacientes con cáncer rectal que logran una respuesta clínica completa luego de la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante han sido tratados de forma no quirúrgica. El treinta por ciento de estos pacientes pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local y generalmente se recomienda la resección de rescate con cirugía radical. Sin embargo, en pacientes seleccionados se podría ofrecer la posibilidad de preservación de órgano mediante escisión local. Se formuló la hipótesis de que los pacientes con estadio clinico inicial T2 y sometidos a terapia neoadyuvante (con el propósito específico de lograr una respuesta clínica completa) tenían más probabilidades de presentar una recurrencia local en una etapa más temprana y suceptibles de estrategias de preservación de órgano (escisión local) en comparación con T3 / T4 (sometidos a nCRT por razones oncológicas).Comparar los pacientes con recidiva local que requirieron cirugia de rescate de acuerdo con su estadio inicial.Revisión retrospectiva de pacientes consecutivos con cáncer de recto distal no metastásico sometidos a quimiorradiación neoadyuvante.Dos centros terciarios independientes con programas institucionales de preservación de órgano - Watch & Wait.Pacientes consecutivos con cáncer rectal distal (cT2-4N1-2M0) manejados por Watch & Wait y recidiva local.Las características patológicas finales, los resultados quirúrgicos y oncológicos se compararon de acuerdo con la estadificación inicial.Un total de 73 de 257 pacientes presentaron recidiva local. cT2 presentaron similares ypT, ypN, R0 y tasas de resección abdominoperineal (p>0,05) en el momento del rescate en comparación con cT3-4.Los pacientes con cT2 de base tuvieron más probabilidades de someterse a un procedimiento de preservación de órgano durante el rescate (56,2% frente a 26,5%; p = 0,03). Supervivencia general y DFS después del rescate fueron similares entre los grupos, independientemente del tipo de cirugía para la recidiva.Estudio retrospectivo, tamaño de muestra pequeño, la posible estadificación basal inexacta.Aunque los pacientes con cáncer rectal cT2 de base presentaron estadio patologico similar en el momento de la recidiva, estos pacientes tuvieron más probabilidades de continuar una vía de preservación de órgano luego de una recidiva local a través de la escisión local transanal en comparación con cT3-4. A pesar de las diferencias en el uso de la resección radical de rescate, no hubo diferencias en los resultados oncológicos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B254.

Bibliometric analysis of randomized controlled trials of colorectal cancer over the last decade

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers globally. In China, its prevalence ranks fourth and fifth among females and males, respectively. Presently, treatment of rectal cancer follows a multidisciplinary comprehensive treatment approach involving surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy. With deepening theoretical and molecular research on colorectal cancer, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on colorectal cancer have made significant progress. However, many RCTs have shortfalls.

AIM

To investigate the RCTs of global colorectal cancer spanning from 2008 to 2018. To provide suggestions for conducting Chinese RCTs of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to obtain RCTs of colorectal cancer carried out between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2018. The bibliometric method was used for statistical analysis of the publication years, countries/regions, authors, institutions, source journals, quoted times, key words, and authors.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer RCTs showed an upward trend between 2008 to 2018; the top 10 research institutions in the included literature were from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries with a high incidence of colorectal cancer. Most of the related research journals are sponsored by European and American countries. The 15 most cited studies involved international multicenter clinical research, having few participants from Chinese research institutions. Network visualization using key words showed that RCTs on colorectal cancer focus on screening, disease-free survival, drug treatment, surgical methods, clinical trials, quality of life, and prognosis. The result of the coauthorship network analysis showed that Chinese researchers are less involved in international exchanges compared to those from leading publication countries.

CONCLUSION

High-quality RCTs are increasingly favored by leading international journals. However, there is still a large gap in clinical research between China and leading countries. Researchers should implement standardized and accurate clinical trials, strengthen international multicenter cooperation, and emphasize quality control.

The multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer

Rectal cancer treatment has evolved during the past 40 years with the use of a standardized surgical technique for tumour resection: total mesorectal excision. A dramatic reduction in local recurrence rates and improved survival outcomes have been achieved as consequences of a better understanding of the surgical oncology of rectal cancer, and the advent of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments to compliment surgery have paved the way for a multidisciplinary approach to disease management. Further improvements in imaging techniques and the ability to identify prognostic factors such as tumour regression, extramural venous invasion and threatened margins have introduced the concept of decision-making based on preoperative staging information. Modern treatment strategies are underpinned by accurate high-resolution imaging guiding both neoadjuvant therapy and precision surgery, followed by meticulous pathological scrutiny identifying the important prognostic factors for adjuvant chemotherapy. Included in these strategies are organ-sparing approaches and watch-and-wait strategies in selected patients. These pathways rely on the close working of interlinked disciplines within a multidisciplinary team. Such multidisciplinary forums are becoming standard in the treatment of rectal cancer across the UK, Europe and, more recently, the USA. This Review examines the essential components of modern-day management of rectal cancer through a multidisciplinary team approach, providing information that is essential for any practising colorectal surgeon to guide the best patient care.

Metformin as an Alternative Radiosensitizing Agent to 5-Fluorouracil During Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer combining 5-fluorouracil with radiation increases tumor regression compared with radiation alone. However, it occurs at the cost of significant treatment-related toxicity. Patients with rectal cancer using metformin have been associated with improved response to radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiosensitizing effects of metformin in vitro and in vivo and compare it with a standard combination of radiation/5-fluorouracil.

DESIGN

Colorectal cancer cell lines SW480, HT29, and HCT116 were used as models. Cell viability was compared under treatments with radiation, radiation/5-fluorouracil, metformin, radiation/metformin, and radiation/5-fluorouracil/metformin. Nude mice were injected subcutaneously with SW480 cells and treated for 1 week with radiation/5-fluorouracil, metformin, radiation/metformin, or radiation/5-fluorouracil/metformin. Tumor volume was evaluated for 4 weeks after treatment completion. The phosphorylation status of key proteins of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway was determined by immunoblots.

SETTINGS

This was an experimental study conducted in vitro and in vivo.

PATIENTS

Animal models/cell lines were used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The end point was to investigate how metformin compares with 5-fluorouracil as a radiosensitizer.

RESULTS

All cell lines significantly decreased cell viability after treatment with radiation/metformin when compared with radiation alone. Radiation/metformin was superior to radiation/5-fluorouracil in SW480 (37% vs 74%; p < 0.001). In HT29 and in HCT116, radiation/metformin was inferior to radiation/5-fluorouracil (40.0% vs 13.8%, p < 0.001 and 40.0% vs 7.0%, p < 0.001), mainly because of increased 5-fluorouracil toxicity (≤20% of cell viability). In vivo assays indicated that radiation/metformin treatment was comparable with radiation/5-fluorouracil (557 vs 398 mm; p > 0.05) and that the addition of metformin to the standard radiation/5-fluorouracil did not improve tumor response (349 mm; p > 0.05). Metformin exerted strong PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway inactivation effects after 24-hour exposure (increasing pAMPK, p < 0.01; decreasing pAkt, p < 0.01; and pS6, p <0.05).

LIMITATIONS

In vitro and in vivo chemoradiation regimens cannot be directly translated to human delivery methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin enhances tumor response to radiation in vitro and in vivo. Metformin is an attractive alternative radiosensitizing agent to be considered in future studies/trials. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B219. LA METFORMINA COMO AGENTE RADIOSENSIBILIZADOR ALTERNATIVO A 5FU DURANTE EL TRATAMIENTO NEOADYUVANTE PARA CÁNCER DE RECTO: La quimiorradiación neoadyuvante para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado que combina 5FU con radiación aumenta la regresión tumoral en comparación con la radiación sola. Sin embargo, se produce a costa de una toxicidad significativa relacionada con el tratamiento. Los pacientes con cáncer de recto que usan metformina se han asociado con una mejor respuesta a la radioterapia.Evaluar los efectos radiosensibilizantes de metformina in vitro e in vivo y compararlo con la combinación estándar de radiación / 5FU.Se usaron como modelos las líneas celulares de cáncer colorrectal SW480, HT29 y HCT116. La viabilidad celular se comparó en tratamientos con radiación, radiación / 5FU, metformina, radiación / metformina y radiación / 5FU / metformina. A los ratones desnudos se les inyectó por vía subcutánea células SW480 y fueron tratados durante una semana con radiación / 5FU, metformina, radiación / metformina o radiación / 5FU / metformina. El volumen tumoral se evaluó durante 4 semanas después de la finalización del tratamiento. El estado de fosforilación de las proteínas clave de la vía PI3K / Akt / mTOR se determinó mediante inmunotransferencias.Estudio experimental in vitro e in vivo.Modelo animal / líneas celulares.El punto final fue investigar cómo la metformina se compara con 5FU como un radiosensibilizador.Todas las líneas celulares disminuyeron significativamente la viabilidad celular después del tratamiento con radiación / metformina en comparación con la radiación sola. La radiación / metformina fue superior a la radiación / 5FU en SW480 (37% frente a 74%; p <0,001). En el HT29 y el HCT116 la radiación / metformina fue inferior a la radiación / 5FU (40% vs 13.8%, p <0.001 y 40% vs 7%, p <0.001; respectivamente), debido principalmente al aumento de la toxicidad de 5FU (≤20% de la célula viabilidad). Los ensayos in vivo indicaron que el tratamiento con radiación / metformina era comparable a la radiación / 5FU (557 vs 398 mm, p > 0.05), y que la adición de metformina a la radiación estándar / 5FU no mejoró la respuesta tumoral (349 mm, p > 0.05). La metformina ejerció fuertes efectos de inactivación de la vía PI3K / Akt / mTOR después de 24 horas de exposición (aumentando pAMPK p < 0.01, disminuyendo pAkt, p < 0.01; y pS6, p < 0.05).Los regímenes de CRT in vitro e in vivo no se pueden traducir directamente a los métodos de entrega en humanos.La metformina mejora la respuesta tumoral a la radiación in vitro e in vivo. La metformina es un agente alternativo de radiosensibilización atractivo para ser considerado en futuros estudios / ensayos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B219. (Traducción-Dr Gonzalo Hagerman).

Predicting Rectal Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Using Deep Learning of Diffusion Kurtosis MRI

Background Preoperative response evaluation with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy remains a challenge in the setting of locally advanced rectal cancer. Recently, deep learning (DL) has been widely used in tumor diagnosis and treatment and has produced exciting results. Purpose To develop and validate a DL method to predict response of rectal cancer to neoadjuvant therapy based on diffusion kurtosis and T2-weighted MRI. Materials and Methods In this prospective study, participants with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (≥cT3 or N+) proved at histopathology and baseline MRI who were scheduled to undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy were enrolled from October 2015 to December 2017 and were chronologically divided into 308 training samples and 104 test samples. DL models were constructed primarily to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) and secondarily to assess tumor regression grade (TRG) (TRG0 and TRG1 vs TRG2 and TRG3) and T downstaging. Other analysis included comparisons of diffusion kurtosis MRI parameters and subjective evaluation by radiologists. Results A total of 383 participants (mean age, 57 years ± 10 [standard deviation]; 229 men) were evaluated (290 in the training cohort, 93 in the test cohort). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.99 for the pCR model in the test cohort, which was higher than the AUC for raters 1 and 2 (0.66 and 0.72, respectively; P < .001 for both). AUC for the DL model was 0.70 for TRG and 0.79 for T downstaging. AUC for pCR with the DL model was better than AUC for the best-performing diffusion kurtosis MRI parameters alone (diffusion coefficient in normal diffusion after correcting the non-Gaussian effect [D_app value] before neoadjuvant therapy, AUC = 0.76). Subjective evaluation by radiologists yielded a higher error rate (1 - accuracy) (25 of 93 [26.9%] and 23 of 93 [24.8%] for raters 1 and 2, respectively) in predicting pCR than did evaluation with the DL model (two of 93 [2.2%]); the radiologists achieved a lower error rate (12 of 93 [12.9%] and 13 of 93 [14.0%] for raters 1 and 2, respectively) when assisted by the DL model. Conclusion A deep learning model based on diffusion kurtosis MRI showed good performance for predicting pathologic complete response and aided the radiologist in assessing response of locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Koh in this issue.

Management of Rectal Cancer

Rectal cancer is often presented with a dizzying array of treatment recommendations. This article clarifies and simplifies this common clinical problem from the surgical perspective. Treatment of rectal cancer requires an understanding of presenting stage (early or advanced) and location (high or low) to provide oncologic sound treatment decisions. Surgical treatment requires a minimum of 1 cm distal margin, careful clearance of the mesorectum and radial margin using total mesorectal excision technique, and 12 or more regional lymph nodes harvested and analyzed. Appropriate and effective multimodality treatments exist and must be used based on sound guidelines as outlined.

Controversies in Rectal Cancer Treatment and Management

Incorporation of new treatment modalities has significantly increased the complexity of the treatment and management of rectal cancer, including perioperative therapy for local advanced disease and organ preservation for those with response to the preoperative treatment. This review may help practitioners better understand the rationale and selection.

Randomized controlled trial of 8 weeks' vs 12 weeks' interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer

AIM

The aim was to compare the pathological complete response (pCR) rate at 8 compared to 12 weeks' interval between completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHOD

This was a randomized trial which included a total of 330 patients from two institutions. Patients with locally advanced (T3-4N0M0, TxN+M0) rectal cancer were randomized into 8- and 12-week interval groups. All the patients received long-course CRT (45 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions and concomitant oral capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil infusion). Surgery was performed at either 8 or 12 weeks after CRT. The primary end-point was pCR. Secondary end-points were sphincter preservation, postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and fifty-two patients (n = 125 in the 8-week group, n = 127 in the 12-week group) were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. The overall pCR rate was 17.9% (n = 45): 12% (n = 15) in the 8-week group and 23.6% (n = 30) in the 12-week group (P = 0.021). Sphincter-preserving surgery was performed in 107 (85.6%) patients which was significantly higher than the 94 (74%) patients in the 12-week group (P = 0.016). Postoperative mortality was seen in three (1.2%) patients overall and was not different between groups (1.6% in 8 weeks vs 0.8% in 12 weeks, P = 0.494). Groups were similar in anastomotic leak (10.8% in 8 weeks vs 4.5% in 12 weeks, P = 0.088) and morbidity (30.4% in 8 weeks and 20.1% in 12 weeks, P = 0.083).

CONCLUSION

Extending the interval between CRT and surgery from 8 to 12 weeks resulted in a 2-fold increase in pCR rate without any difference in mortality and morbidity.

Prediction of Poor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Patients With Rectal Cancer Using a DNA Repair Deregulation Score: Picking the Losers Instead of the Winners

BACKGROUND

Patients with rectal cancer may undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiation even in early stages in an attempt to achieve complete clinical response and undergo organ preservation. However, prediction of tumor response is unavailable. In this setting, accurate identification of poor responders could spare patients with early stage disease from potentially unnecessary chemoradiation.

OBJECTIVE

This study focused on development/test of a score based on DNA repair gene expression to predict response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with rectal cancer.

DESIGN

Pretreatment biopsy samples from patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation were collected and underwent gene expression analysis using RNA-Seq (test cohort). A score was constructed using 8 differentially expressed DNA repair genes between good (complete clinical) and poor responders (incomplete clinical) to treatment. The score was validated in 2 independent cohorts of patients undergoing similar treatment strategies and using quantitative polymerase chain reaction and microarray gene expression data.

SETTINGS

This was a retrospective analysis of gene expression data from 3 independent institutions.

PATIENTS

Patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4-54.0 Gy and 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy) were eligible. Patients with complete clinical response, complete pathological response, or ≤10% residual cancer cells were considered good responders. Patients with >10% residual cancer cells were considered poor responders. The test cohort included 25 patients (16 poor responders). Validation cohort 1 included 28 patients (18 poor responders), and validation cohort 2 included 46 patients (22 poor responders).

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Response was correlated with the DNA repair score calculated using the expression levels of 8 DNA repair genes. DNA repair score sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were determined in test and validation cohorts.

RESULTS

Poor responders had significantly lower DNA repair scores when compared with good responders across all 3 cohorts, regardless of the gene expression platform used. A low score correctly predicted poor response in 93%, 90%, and 71% in test, validation 1, and validation 2 cohorts.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its small sample size, different gene expression platforms, and treatment regimens across different cohorts used.

CONCLUSIONS

A DNA repair gene score may predict patients likely to have poor response to chemoradiation. This score may be a relevant tool to be investigated in future studies focused on chemoradiation used in the context of organ preservation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B104. PREDICCIÓN DE RESPUESTA DEFICIENTE A LA RADIO-QUIMIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE EN PACIENTES CON CÁNCER RECTAL UTILIZANDO UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE DESREGULACIÓN DE REPARACIÓN DE ADN: ESCOGER LOS PERDEDORES EN LUGAR DE LOS GANADORES: Los pacientes con cáncer rectal pueden someterse a radio-quimioterapia neoadyuvante incluso en estadios tempranos en el intento por lograr una respuesta clínica completa y permitir una preservación de órgano. Sin embargo, aun no existen herramientas disponible para la prediccion de la respuesta tumoral al tratamiento. En este contexto, la identificación precisa de los tumores con mala respuesta al tratamiento podría evitar que los pacientes con enfermedad en estadio temprano sean sometidos a radio-quimioterapia potencialmente innecesaria.Desarrollo / testeo de una puntuación basada en la expresión genes reparadores del ADN para predecir la respuesta a la nCRT en pacientes con cáncer rectal.Se recogieron muestras de biopsia de pre-tratamiento de pacientes con cáncer rectal sometidos a radio-quimioterapia neoadyuvante y se les realizó un análisis de expresión génica utilizando RNAseq (cohorte de prueba). Se construyó una puntuación utilizando 8 genes de reparación de ADN expresados diferencialmente entre buenos (respuesta clinica completa) y pobres respondedores (respuesta clinica incompleta) al tratamiento. La puntuación se validó en 2 cohortes independientes de pacientes sometidos a estrategias de tratamiento similares y utilizando qPCR y datos de expresión de genes en chips ADN (biotecnología -microarrays).Análisis retrospectivo de los datos de expresión génica de 3 instituciones independientes.Fueron incluidos aquellos pacientes con cáncer rectal sometidos a radio-quimioterapia neoadyuvante (50,4-54 Gy y quimioterapia basada en 5FU). Los pacientes con respuesta clínica completa, respuesta patológica completa o ≤10% de células cancerosas residuales se consideraron buenos respondedores. Los pacientes con> 10% de células cancerosas residuales se consideraron de respuesta deficiente. La cohorte de prueba incluyó a 25 pacientes (16 respondedores pobres). La cohorte de validación n. ° 1 incluyó a 28 pacientes (18 respondedores pobres) y la cohorte de validación n. ° 2 incluyó a 46 pacientes (22 respondedores pobres).La respuesta se correlacionó con la puntuación de reparación de ADN calculada utilizando los niveles de expresión de 8 genes de reparación de ADN. La sensibilidad del puntaje de reparación del ADN, la especificidad, los valores predictivos positivos y negativos se determinaron en las cohortes de prueba y validación.Los malos respondedores tuvieron puntuaciones de reparación de ADN significativamente más bajas en comparación con los buenos respondedores en las 3 cohortes, independientemente de la plataforma de expresión génica utilizada. Una puntuación baja predijo correctamente una respuesta pobre en el 93%, 90% y 71% en las cohortes de prueba, validación n. ° 1 y validación n. ° 2, respectivamente.Pequeño tamaño de la muestra, diferentes plataformas de expresión génica y regímenes de tratamiento en diferentes cohortes utilizadas.La puntuacion basada en genes de reparación del ADN puede predecir los pacientes con respuesta pobre a la radio-quimioterapia. Esta puntuación puede ser una herramienta relevante para investigar en futuros estudios centrados en la radio-quimioterapia utilizada en el contexto de la preservación de órganos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B104. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo and Dr. Laura Melina Fernandez).

Treatment of stage I-III rectal cancer: Who is refusing surgery?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Surgical resection is a cornerstone in the management of patients with rectal cancer. Patients may refuse surgical treatment for several reasons although the rate of refusal is currently unknown.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was utilized to identify patients with stage I-III rectal cancer. Patients who refused surgical resection were compared to patients who underwent curative resection.

RESULTS

A total of 509 (2.6%) patients with stage I and 2082 (3.5%) patients with stage II/III rectal cancer refused surgery. In multivariable analysis for stage I disease, older age, Black race, and Medicaid/no insurance were independent predictors of surgery refusal. Patients were less likely to refuse surgery if they had a higher income or lived further distances from the treatment facility. In multivariable analysis for stage II/III disease, older age, Black race, insurance other than private, and rural county were independent predictors of surgery refusal. Patients were less likely to refuse surgery if they had higher Charlson comorbidity scores, lived further distances from the treatment facility, or underwent chemoradiation. There was a significant decrease in survival for patients refusing surgery compared to patients undergoing recommended surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

A small proportion of patients refuse surgery for rectal cancer, and this treatment decision significantly affects survival.

Management and Outcome of Local Regrowths in a Watch-and-wait Prospective Cohort for Complete Responses in Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the management and oncological outcomes of rectal cancer patients with local regrowth in a watch-and-wait (W&W) program.

BACKGROUND

Approximately 15%-30% of patients with a clinical complete response after (chemo) radiotherapy who undergo a W&W policy will experience a local regrowth. The risks of these local regrowths have not yet been fully established and main concerns include high postoperative morbidity, requirement of advanced surgery, and pelvic recurrence after regrowth treatment.

METHODS

All patients with a local regrowth after an initial W&W approach between January 2005 and March 2018 were retrospectively identified from 2 cohorts of rectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response after (chemo) radiotherapy. Type and outcome of regrowth treatment were assessed. Oncological outcome was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine out of 385 patients developed a local regrowth after a median of 9 (interquartile range 7-14) months. Median follow-up time was 28 (interquartile range 19-41) months. Eighty-four (94%) patients underwent surgical treatment of the local regrowth: total mesorectal excision was performed in 58 out of 84 (69%) patients and local excision was performed in 26 (31%) patients. The 2-year local recurrence-free rate, distant metastasis-free rate, disease-free survival, and overall survival in the patients undergoing surgical treatment were 97.8%, 91.8%, 90.3%, and 98.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority (97%) of patients with regrowth after a W&W policy were able to undergo treatment with curative intent for local regrowth. Uncontrolled pelvic disease was very rare.

Organ preservation with chemoradiotherapy plus local excision for rectal cancer: 5-year results of the GRECCAR 2 randomised trial

BACKGROUND

GRECCAR 2 was the first multicentre, randomised trial to compare local excision with total mesorectal excision in downstaged low rectal cancer. Encouraging oncological results were noted at 3 years' follow-up but needed to be corroborated with longer follow-up. In this study, we aimed to report the 5-year oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, metastatic disease, and survival.

METHODS

Patients age 18 years and older with T2T3 low rectal cancer, of maximum size 4 cm, who were clinically good responders after chemoradiotherapy (residual tumour ≤2 cm) were randomly assigned before surgery to either local excision or total mesorectal excision. Randomisation was centralised and not stratified and used permuted blocks of size eight. In the local excision group, a completion total mesorectal excision was performed if pathological tumour stage was ypT2-3. The primary objective of this study was to assess the 5-year oncological outcomes of local recurrence, metastatic disease, disease-free survival, overall survival, and cancer-specific mortality, which were the secondary endpoints of GRECCAR 2. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox modelling to estimate and compare recurrence and survival in modified intention-to-treat and as-treated populations. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427375.

FINDINGS

Between March 1, 2007, and Sept 24, 2012, 148 patients who were good clinical responders were randomly assigned to treatment, three patients were excluded after randomisation (because they had metastatic disease, tumour >8 cm from anal verge, or withdrew consent), leaving 145 for analysis: 74 in the local excision group and 71 in the total mesorectal excision group. Median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 58-60) in the local excision group and 60 months (57-60) in the total mesorectal excision group. 23 patients died and five were lost to follow-up. In the local excision group, 26 had a completion total mesorectal excision for ypT2-3 tumour. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between the local excision and total mesorectal excision groups in 5-year local recurrence (7% [95% CI 3-16] vs 7% [3-16]; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·19-2·58]; p=0·60), metastatic disease (18% [CI 11-30] vs 19% [11-31]; 0·86 [0·36-2·06]; p=0·73), overall survival (84% [73-91] vs 82% [71-90]; 0·92 [0·38-2·22]; p=0·85), disease-free survival (70% [58-79] vs 72% [60-82]; 0·87 [0·44-1·72]; p=0·68), or cancer-specific mortality (7% [3-17] vs 10% [5-20]; 0·65 [0·17-2·49]; p=0·53).

INTERPRETATION

The 5-year results of this multicentre randomised trial corroborate the 3-year results, providing no evidence of difference in oncological outcomes between local excision and total mesorectal excision. Local excision can be proposed in selected patients having a small T2T3 low rectal cancer with a good clinical response after chemoradiotherapy.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute of France.

Predictors for complete pathological response for stage II and III rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing interest in the complete pathological response (pCR) in rectal cancers following neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study was to identify predictive factors of pCR in locally advanced rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODS

The studies identified were appraised with standard selection criteria. The selection criteria included studies on patients with stage II or III rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Patients with pCR are more likely to be older (p = 0.0002), have cancers closer distance to the anal verge (p < 0.00001), smaller tumors (P < 0.0001), no clinical lymph nodes involvement (p=<0.00001) and waited more than eight weeks until definitive surgery (p = 0.002). There was no difference in gender (p = 0.15) and tumor differentiation (p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

The 'Watch and Wait' approach may be appropriate for selected patients. Patients with lower rectal cancers, smaller tumors, and negative clinical lymph node involvement may be more likely to achieve pCR following neoadjuvant therapy.

Clinical significance of evaluating endoscopic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Clinical significance of endoscopic response (ER) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for esophageal cancer has not been fully understood. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the association between ER to NAC and its clinicopathological outcomes in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

In total, 141 patients who underwent NAC and subsequent esophagectomy for ESCC were included. ER to NAC was retrospectively evaluated based on macroscopic findings of the primary tumor, which was classified into three categories: endoscopic no response (eNR), endoscopic partial response (ePR), and endoscopic good response (eGR). An endoscopic responder was defined as patients with eGR/ePR.

RESULTS

Approximately 89.4% of patients had cStage II-III disease, and 7.1% had pathological complete response. Upon ER evaluation, eNR, ePR, and eGR were observed in 46 (32.6%), 54 (38.3%), and 41 (29.1%) patients, respectively. Pathological responders significantly increased as the ER grade became better. Among preoperative clinical factors, only ER significantly correlated with pathological response in univariate and multivariate analysis. Endoscopic responders showed a significantly better prognosis than did eNR patients (P < 0.001), although the overall survival (OS) of the patients with eGR and ePR was equivalent. Endoscopic responder, ypT, ypN, and pathological responder were significant predictors of OS in the univariate analysis, and endoscopic responder, ypN, and pathological responder were independent predictors in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that ER can be a simple and important tool to predict the pathological response and survival of patients who undergo NAC for ESCC.

Surgical treatment following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is a major public health problem worldwide, and locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is known for its poor prognosis. A multimodal treatment approach is the only method to achieve satisfactory local recurrence and survival rates in LARC. Determining which therapeutic modality for LARC has the most satisfactory influence on quality of life and disease outcome is still controversial. LARC treatment is subject to continuous advancement due to the development of new and better diagnostic tools, radiotherapy techniques, and chemotherapeutic agents. Herein, we review various therapeutic modalities for LARC from several aspects. In addition to radiotherapy techniques such as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT), we discuss the progress of chemotherapy, appropriate time interval between NCRT and surgery, relationship between tumor location and NCRT efficacy/safety, wait-and-watch policy, and predictors of treatment response following NCRT. Because of the controversies and unanswered questions regarding NCRT treatments for LARC, additional investigations are required to determine which therapeutic approach is the most feasible for LARC patients.

Predictive Value of Endoscopic Features for a Complete Response After Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND

Watch-and-wait approach in rectal cancer relies on the identification of a clinical complete response (CR) after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. This is mainly performed by rectal examination, magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopy. Endoscopy has been less well studied, and the objective of the study is to assess the diagnostic value of endoscopy and the predictive value of endoscopic features for the identification of CR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 161 patients with primary rectal cancer undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy for response assessment after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy between January 2012 and December 2015 at a single institution were evaluated retrospectively. Three independent readers scored endoscopic features and a confidence level score for a CR. Diagnostic performance of endoscopy and positive predictive value (PPV) of endoscopic features for a CR were calculated. If available, biopsy results were revealed to the reader and a change in confidence level was noted. Reference standard was histology after surgery, or long-term outcome in a watch-and-wait policy.

RESULTS

Median time to endoscopy was 9 (interquartile range 8-12) weeks. Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value for a CR were 0.80 to 0.84, 72% to 94%, 61% to 85%, 63% to 78% and 80% to 89%, respectively. A flat scar was the most predictive feature of a CR (PPV 70%-80%). The PPV of small flat ulcers and large flat ulcers were 40% to 50% and 29% to 33%, respectively. The addition of biopsy results led to a significant change in confidence level score in 4% to 13% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 70% of the patients with a luminal CR after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer can be identified by endoscopy at ±9 weeks. Together with findings on digital rectal examination (DRE) and magnetic resonance imaging, specific endoscopic features can be used to select patients for an extended observation period to select for organ preservation.

"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.

Local excision following chemoradiotherapy in T2-T3 rectal cancer: current status and critical appraisal

Local excision following chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer is an organ-preserving procedure which aims at reducing morbidity and functional disorders associated with total mesorectal excision (TME) in selected patients. Although TME after chemoradiotherapy remains the gold standard for locally advanced mid and low rectal cancer, in the last years multicenter research trials have offered encouraging oncologic results which have allowed to preserve the rectum in patients with a pathologic complete response after chemoradiotherapy. A review of the available literature on this topic was conducted to define the state of the art of this conservative approach and to focus on the most controversial aspects concerning local excision performed after chemoradiotherapy, in particular tumor scatter and lymph node status, completion and salvage surgery, morbidity and quality of life. The analysis of these topics should be considered, in trial setting or in current practice, for their clinical implications. Oncologic outcomes of recent trials are encouraging for part of the patients presenting T2 rectal cancer; however, TME still remains the standard treatment in clinical practice. In such cases, local excision should include a surgical safety margin of at least 1 cm from the resection margin to achieve a true negative margin from residual tumor cells. The selection of the patients should be carefully performed and their consensus extremely detailed because TME is necessary in about 30% of cases. Failing that, morbidity and quality of life are negatively affected. However, about half of these patients refuse radical surgery (45%), thus undergoing only palliative care.

"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.

The impact of total neo-adjuvant treatment on nonoperative management in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: The evaluation of 66 cases

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to assess if adherence to a total-neoadjuvant-treatment (TNT) protocol followed by observation(watch-and-wait) led to the successful nonoperative-management of low-rectal-cancer.

METHODS

In this study, patients with primary, resectable-T3-T4, N0-N1 distal-rectal-adenocarcinoma underwent-chemoradiotherapy + consolidation-chemotherapy (TNT). During the-TNT-period, endoscopy, MRI, and FDG-PET/CT were performed. We allocated patients with complete-clinical-tumor-regression, who underwent endoscopy every two months, MRI every-four-months, and PET/CT every-six-months-after-treatment, to the observation-group(OG). All other patients were referred for surgery. The OG was followed-up. The primary endpoint was local tumor-ecurrence after allocation to the OG.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2018, we enrolled 66-patients. Of 60-patients who were eligible to participate, 39 had complete-clinical-response(cCR) and were allocated to the OG, six underwent local-excision (LE), and 15 underwent total-mesorectal-excision (TME). The median follow-up duration was 22 (9-42) months. The local-recurrence-rate in the OG was 15.3%, and the LE and TME rates were 16.6% and 0%, respectively. All recurrence cases were salvaged through either LE or TME. The-distant-metastasis rate was 5.1%, 16.6%, and 12.5% in the OG, LE, and TME groups, respectively. The endoscopic negative-predictive-value(NPV) was 50%, and the positive-predictive-value(PPV) was 76.9% in the surgery group (LE + TME). MRI; NPV-50%, PPV-76.9%. PET/CT; NPV-100%, PPV-93.3%. Six patients(28.57%) from surgery group achieved complete pathological response (cPR).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated a high proportion of selected-rectal-cancers with-cCR after neo-adjuvant-therapy could potentially be managed non-operatively, and major surgery may be avoided.

State of the Art - Rectal Cancer Surgery

Background

In an aging society, the incidence and relevance of rectal cancer as one of the most frequent gastrointestinal cancers gains in importance. Excellent surgery and up-to-date multimodal treatments are essential for adequate oncological results and good quality of life.

Summary

In this review, we describe modern developments in rectal cancer surgery and its embedment in modern multimodal therapy concepts.

Key Message

Distinguished interdisciplinary cooperation combined with an outstanding surgical expertise is the basic requirement for an optimal treatment of rectal cancer. Thus, high standards of oncological outcome and patient's quality of life can be achieved.

Non-operative management of rectal cancer

Despite advances in technique, surgical resection of rectal cancer remains a morbid procedure that can lead a profound decrease in a patient's quality of life. A novel method of management, termed "Non-operative management" (NOM), mirrors the management of anal carcinoma. Patients undergo definitive treatment with only chemotherapy and radiation, with resection reserved only for salvage. Current data is encouraging- both in reduction in morbidity and similar, if not superior oncologic results. However, there are a number of barriers to the wide adoption of this practice. This manuscript seeks to describe the rationale and execution of NOM as well as present the current data and pitfalls of the approach.

Role of magnetic resonance imaging in organ-preserving strategies for the management of patients with rectal cancer

Total mesorectal excision has been the most effective treatment strategy adopted to reduce local recurrence rates among patients with rectal cancer. The morbidity associated with this radical surgical procedure led surgeons to challenge the standard therapy particularly when dealing with superficial lesions or good responders after neoadjuvant radiotherapy, to which radical surgery may be considered overtreatment. In this subset of patients, less invasive procedures in an organ-preserving strategy may result in good oncological and functional outcomes. In order to tailor the most appropriate treatment option, accurate baseline staging and reassessment of tumor response are relevant. MRI is the most robust tool for the precise selection of patients that are candidates for organ preservation; therefore, radiologists must be familiar with the criteria used to guide the management of these patients. The purpose of this article is to review the relevant features that radiologists should know in order to provide valuable information during the multidisciplinary discussion and ultimate management decision.

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.