1
|
Thompson HM, Omer DM, Lin S, Kim JK, Yuval JB, Veheij FS, Qin LX, Gollub MJ, Wu AJC, Lee M, Patil S, Hezel AF, Marcet JE, Cataldo PA, Polite BN, Herzig DO, Liska D, Oommen S, Friel CM, Ternent CA, Coveler AL, Hunt SR, Garcia-Aguilar J. Organ Preservation and Survival by Clinical Response Grade in Patients With Rectal Cancer Treated With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Secondary Analysis of the OPRA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2350903. [PMID: 38194231 PMCID: PMC10777257 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50903] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2023] [Accepted: 11/20/2023] [Indexed: 01/10/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Assessing clinical tumor response following completion of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer is paramount to select patients for watch-and-wait treatment. Objective To assess organ preservation (OP) and oncologic outcomes according to clinical tumor response grade. Design, Setting, and Participants This was secondary analysis of the Organ Preservation in Patients with Rectal Adenocarcinoma trial, a phase 2, nonblinded, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Randomization occurred between April 2014 and March 2020. Eligible participants included patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma. Data analysis occurred from March 2022 to July 2023. Intervention Patients were randomized to induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation or chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy. Tumor response was assessed 8 (±4) weeks after TNT by digital rectal examination and endoscopy and categorized by clinical tumor response grade. A 3-tier grading schema that stratifies clinical tumor response into clinical complete response (CCR), near complete response (NCR), and incomplete clinical response (ICR) was devised to maximize patient eligibility for OP. Main Outcomes and Measures OP and survival rates by clinical tumor response grade were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Results There were 304 eligible patients, including 125 patients with a CCR (median [IQR] age, 60.6 [50.4-68.0] years; 76 male [60.8%]), 114 with an NCR (median [IQR] age, 57.6 [49.1-67.9] years; 80 male [70.2%]), and 65 with an ICR (median [IQR] age, 55.5 [47.7-64.2] years; 41 male [63.1%]) based on endoscopic imaging. Age, sex, tumor distance from the anal verge, pathological tumor classification, and clinical nodal classification were similar among the clinical tumor response grades. Median (IQR) follow-up for patients with OP was 4.09 (2.99-4.93) years. The 3-year probability of OP was 77% (95% CI, 70%-85%) for patients with a CCR and 40% (95% CI, 32%-51%) for patients with an NCR (P < .001). Clinical tumor response grade was associated with disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. Conclusions and Relevance In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, most patients with a CCR after TNT achieved OP, with few developing tumor regrowth. Although the probability of tumor regrowth was higher for patients with an NCR compared with patients with a CCR, a significant proportion of patients achieved OP. These findings suggest the 3-tier grading schema can be used to estimate recurrence and survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who receive TNT. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02008656.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah M. Thompson
- Colorectal Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Dana M. Omer
- Colorectal Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Sabrina Lin
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Jin K. Kim
- Colorectal Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Jonathan B. Yuval
- Colorectal Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Floris S. Veheij
- Colorectal Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Li-Xuan Qin
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Marc J. Gollub
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Abraham Jing-Ching Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Meghan Lee
- Colorectal Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Sujata Patil
- Department of Quantitative Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Aram F. Hezel
- James P. Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | | | | | - Blase N. Polite
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Daniel O. Herzig
- Department of Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
| | - David Liska
- Department of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Samuel Oommen
- Department of Surgery, John Muir Health, Walnut Creek, California
| | - Charles M. Friel
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville
| | - Charles A. Ternent
- Department of Surgery, Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
| | | | - Steven R. Hunt
- Department of Surgery, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri
| | - Julio Garcia-Aguilar
- Colorectal Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
São Julião GP, Fernández LM, Vailati BB, Habr-Gama A, Azevedo JM, Santiago IA, Parés O, Parvaiz A, Vendrely V, Rullier A, Rullier E, Denost Q, Perez RO. Local Regrowth and the Risk of Distant Metastases Among Patients Undergoing Watch-and-Wait for Rectal Cancer: What Is the Best Control Group? Multicenter Retrospective Study. Dis Colon Rectum 2024; 67:73-81. [PMID: 37493198 DOI: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000002930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A proportion of rectal cancer patients who achieve a clinical complete response may develop local regrowth. Although salvage appears to provide appropriate local control, the risk of distant metastases is less known. OBJECTIVE To compare the risk of distant metastases between patients who achieve a clinical complete response (watch-and-wait strategy) and subsequent local regrowth and patients managed by surgery after chemoradiation. DESIGN Retrospective multicenter cohort study. SETTINGS This study used data of patients from 3 institutions who were treated between 1993 and 2019. PATIENTS Patients with initial clinical complete response (after neoadjuvant therapy) followed by local regrowth and patients with near-complete pathological response (≤10%) after straightforward surgery after chemoradiation were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for distant metastases. Kaplan-Meier curves were created (log-rank test) to compare survival outcomes. Analyses were performed using time zero as last day of radiation therapy or as date of salvage resection in the local regrowth group. RESULTS Twenty-one of 79 patients with local regrowth developed distant metastases, whereas only 10 of 74 after upfront total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy ( p = 0.04). Local regrowth and final pathology (ypT3-4) were the only independent risk factors associated with distant metastases. When using date of salvage resection as time zero, distant metastases-free survival rates were significantly inferior for patients with local regrowth (70% vs 86%; p = 0.01). LIMITATIONS Small number of patients, many neoadjuvant therapies, and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing watch-and-wait strategy who develop local regrowth are at higher risk for development of distant metastases compared to patients with near-complete pathological response managed by upfront surgery after chemoradiation. See Video Abstract. NUEVO CRECIMIENTO LOCAL Y EL RIESGO DE METSTASIS A DISTANCIA ENTRE PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A OBSERVACIN Y ESPERA POR CNCER DE RECTO CUL ES EL MEJOR GRUPO DE CONTROL ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO MUTICNTRICO ANTECEDENTES:Una proporción de pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local. Si bien el rescate parece proporcionar un control local apropiado, el riesgo de metástasis a distancia es menos conocido.OBJETIVO:Comparar el riesgo de metástasis a distancia entre los pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa (estrategia de observación y espera) y el nuevo crecimiento local posterior con los pacientes tratados con cirugía después de la quimiorradiación.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte multicéntrico retrospectivo.CONFIGURACIÓN:Este estudio utilizó datos de pacientes de 3 instituciones que fueron tratados entre 1993 y 2019.PACIENTES:Pacientes con respuesta clínica completa inicial (después de la terapia neoadyuvante) seguida de crecimiento local nuevo y pacientes con respuesta patológica casi completa (≤10 %) después de cirugía directa después de quimiorradiación.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se realizó un análisis univariante/multivariante para identificar los factores de riesgo de metástasis a distancia. Se crearon curvas de Kaplan-Meier (prueba de rango logarítmico) para comparar los resultados de supervivencia. El análisis se realizó utilizando el tiempo cero como último día de radioterapia (1) o como fecha de resección de rescate (2) en el grupo de recrecimiento local.RESULTADOS:Veintiuno de 79 pacientes con recrecimiento local desarrollaron metástasis a distancia, mientras que solo 10 de 74 después de una cirugía sencilla (p = 0,04). El recrecimiento local y la patología final (ypT3-4) fueron los únicos factores de riesgo independientes asociados con las metástasis a distancia. Cuando se utilizó la fecha de la resección de rescate como tiempo cero, las tasas de supervivencia sin metástasis a distancia fueron significativamente inferiores para los pacientes con recrecimiento local (70 frente a 86 %; p = 0,01).LIMITACIONES:Pequeño número de pacientes, muchas terapias neoadyuvantes, sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes sometidos a observación y espera que desarrollan un nuevo crecimiento local tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar metástasis a distancia en comparación con los pacientes con una respuesta patológica casi completa manejados con cirugía por adelantado después de la quimiorradiación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guilherme Pagin São Julião
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo, Brazil
- Department of Coloproctology, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | - Bruna Borba Vailati
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo, Brazil
- Department of Coloproctology, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Angelita Habr-Gama
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo, Brazil
- Department of Coloproctology, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil
- University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - José M Azevedo
- Colorectal Surgery Department, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon
| | | | - Oriol Parés
- Radiation Oncology Department, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon
| | - Amjad Parvaiz
- Colorectal Surgery Department, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon
| | - Véronique Vendrely
- Department of Radiotherapy, Haut-Lévêque Hospital, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
| | - Anne Rullier
- Department of Pathology, Pellegrin Hospital, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
| | - Eric Rullier
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Haut-Lévêque Hospital, CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
| | - Quentin Denost
- Bordeaux Colorectal Institute, Tivoli Clinic, Bordeaux, France
| | - Rodrigo Oliva Perez
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo, Brazil
- Department of Coloproctology, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil
- Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, São Paulo Branch, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fernandez LM, São Julião GP, Renehan AG, Beets GL, Papoila AL, Vailati BB, Kranenbarg EMK, Roodvoets AGH, Figueiredo NL, Van De Velde CJH, Habr-Gama A, Perez RO. Rectal Cancer and Organ-Preservation: Safety First, Then the King. Dis Colon Rectum 2023; 66:e1054-e1055. [PMID: 37493212 DOI: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000003020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/27/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Laura M Fernandez
- Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Department, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Guilherme P São Julião
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo, Brazil, Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Andrew G Renehan
- Manchester Cancer Research Centre, National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, Colorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, The Netherlands
| | - Ana L Papoila
- NOVA Medical School, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas (NMS|FCM), Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Bruna B Vailati
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo, Brazil, Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | - Annet G H Roodvoets
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Nuno L Figueiredo
- Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Department, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal, Colorectal Surgery, Hospital Lusiadas, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Cornelis J H Van De Velde
- Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Angelita Habr-Gama
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo, Brazil, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Rodrigo O Perez
- Colorectal Surgery Division, Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo, Brazil, Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil, Colorectal Surgery Division, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, São Paulo Branch, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cerdán-Santacruz C, Cano-Valderrama Ó, Santos Rancaño R, Terés LB, Vigorita V, Pérez TP, Rosciano Paganelli JG, Paredes Cotoré JP, Carre MK, Flor-Lorente B, Antona FB, Martín EY, Tebar JC, Cao IA, Coltell ZB, Alonso MG, Paredes Cotoré JP, Prada López BL, Riesco AB, Cánovas NI, Sánchez CM, Serrat DR, Conde GA, Toscano MJ, Aira AC, Pérez MR, Petit NM, Espín Basany E, Carré MK, Pellino G, Retuerta JM, Saldaña AG, Laso CÁ, Allende IA, Álvarez DH, Cazador AC, Sánchez Bautista WM, Torres Sánchez MT, Bonito AC, Velázquez MC, Díaz OM, Fuentes NS, Olías MDCDLV, Pérez TP, Rosciano Paganelli JG, Lorente BF, Valderrama ÓC, Santos Rancaño R, Terés LB, Santacruz CC. "Long-term oncologic outcomes and risk factors for distant recurrence after pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. A nationwide, multicentre study". EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 2023; 49:106962. [PMID: 37414628 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.06.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2022] [Revised: 04/09/2023] [Accepted: 06/15/2023] [Indexed: 07/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pathologic complete response (pCR) after multimodal treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is used as surrogate marker of success as it is assumed to correlate with improved oncologic outcome. However, long-term oncologic data are scarce. METHODS This retrospective, multicentre study updated the oncologic follow-up of prospectively collected data from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project database. pCR was described as no evidence of tumour cells in the specimen. Endpoints were distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS). Multivariate regression analyses were run to identify factors associated with survival. RESULTS Overall, 32 different hospitals were involved, providing data on 815 patients with pCR. At a median follow-up of 73.4 (IQR 57.7-99.5) months, distant metastases occurred in 6.4% of patients. Abdominoperineal excision (APE) (HR 2.2, 95%CI 1.2-4.1, p = 0.008) and elevated CEA levels (HR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.7, p = 0.049) were independent risk factors for distant recurrence. Age (years) (HR 1.1; 95%-CI 1.05-41.09; p < 0.001) and ASA III-IV (HR = 2.0; 95%-CI 1.4-2.9; p < 0.001), were the only factors associated with OS. The estimated 12, 36 and 60-months DMFS rates were 96.9%, 91.3%, and 86.8%. The estimated 12, 36 and 60-months OS rates were 99.1%, 94.9% and 89.3%. CONCLUSIONS The incidence of metachronous distant metastases is low after pCR, with high rates of both DMFS and OS. The oncologic prognosis in LARC patients that achieve pCR after neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy is excellent in the long term.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Lara Blanco Terés
- Colorectal Surgery Department, Hospital de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain
| | - Vicenzo Vigorita
- Colorectal Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | | | | | - Jesús Pedro Paredes Cotoré
- Colorectal Surgery Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, La Coruña, Spain
| | | | - Blas Flor-Lorente
- Colorectal Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico la Fe, Valencia, Spain
| | | | | | | | - Inés Aldrey Cao
- Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Orense, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cerdan-Santacruz C, São Julião GP, Vailati BB, Corbi L, Habr-Gama A, Perez RO. Watch and Wait Approach for Rectal Cancer. J Clin Med 2023; 12:jcm12082873. [PMID: 37109210 PMCID: PMC10143332 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12082873] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2023] [Revised: 04/10/2023] [Accepted: 04/12/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023] Open
Abstract
The administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorrectal excision (TME) and selective use of adjuvant chemotherapy can still be considered the standard of care in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, avoiding sequelae of TME and entering a narrow follow-up program of watch and wait (W&W), in select cases that achieve a comparable clinical complete response (cCR) to nCRT, is now very attractive to both patients and clinicians. Many advances based on well-designed studies and long-term data coming from big multicenter cohorts have drawn some important conclusions and warnings regarding this strategy. In order to safely implement W&W, it is important consider proper selection of cases, best treatment options, surveillance strategy and the attitudes towards near complete responses or even tumor regrowth. The present review offers a comprehensive overview of W&W strategy from its origins to the most current literature, from a practical point of view focused on daily clinical practice, without losing sight of the most important future prospects in this area.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlos Cerdan-Santacruz
- Department of Coloproctology, Hospital Universitario de la Princesa, 28006 Madrid, Spain
- Department of Coloproctology, Clínica Santa Elena, 28003 Madrid, Spain
| | - Guilherme Pagin São Julião
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo 01329-020, Brazil
- Department of Coloproctology, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo 01323-020, Brazil
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo 01323-001, Brazil
| | - Bruna Borba Vailati
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo 01329-020, Brazil
- Department of Coloproctology, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo 01323-020, Brazil
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo 01323-001, Brazil
| | - Leonardo Corbi
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo 01329-020, Brazil
- Department of Coloproctology, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo 01323-020, Brazil
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo 01323-001, Brazil
| | - Angelita Habr-Gama
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo 01329-020, Brazil
- Department of Coloproctology, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo 01323-020, Brazil
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo 01323-001, Brazil
| | - Rodrigo Oliva Perez
- Angelita and Joaquim Gama Institute, São Paulo 01329-020, Brazil
- Department of Coloproctology, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo 01323-020, Brazil
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Beneficencia Portuguesa, São Paulo 01323-001, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|