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

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The ultimate local failure rate after the watch-and-wait strategy for rectal cancer: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We hypothesise that a high rate of tumour regrowth after the watch-and-wait (w&w) strategy may lead, despite salvage surgery, to a significant impairment of ultimate local control compared with immediate surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To test this hypothesis, we conducted meta-analyses of studies on the w&w strategy (both opportunistic and planned) with an ultimate local failure rate as an endpoint in three patient groups: (1) in all starting radio(chemo)therapy as potential w&w candidates, (2) in a subgroup starting w&w, and (3) in a subgroup with regrowth.

RESULTS

We identified eight studies for evaluation of local failure in group 1 (N = 837) and 36 studies in group 2 (N = 1914) and in group 3 (N = 439). The meta-analysis revealed an ultimate local failure rate of 8.0% (95% CI 4.8%-12.1%) in group 1 and 5.4% (95% CI 3.9%-7.1) in group 2. These rates are similar to those reported in the literature following preoperative chemoradiation and surgery. However, in the most unfavourable group 3 (with regrowth), the rate of ultimate local failure was 24.1% (95% CI 17.9%-30.9%), with the most common causes being patients' refusal of salvage total mesorectal excision (TME) (9.1%), recurrence after salvage TME (7.8%), distant metastases (4.1%), frailty (2.4%), and pelvic tumour unresectability (1.7%).

CONCLUSION

Nearly 25% of patients with regrowth (unfavourable subgroup) experienced ultimate local failure, primarily due to refusing salvage TME. The risk of ultimate local failure in patients initiating radio(chemo)therapy as potential w&w candidates, or in patients starting w&w, appears comparable to that reported after preoperative chemoradiation and surgery. However, this comparison may be biased, because w&w studies included more early tumours compared with surgical studies.

Outcomes after the watch-and-wait strategy and local excision treatment for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy and local excision (LE) have been used in patients with clinical complete response (cCR) for rectal cancer, but the comparative outcomes of the two strategies are controversial. We compared the efficacy of the W&W strategy with LE for rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) or total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Several domestic and foreign databases were searched for the relevant literature on comparative trials of the W&W strategy and LE surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy with the following outcomes; differences in local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM/DM+LR), 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Nine articles, were analyzed. Overall, 442 patients were included, with 267 and 175 patients in the W&W and LE groups, respectively. Meta-analysis results showed no significant differences the between W&W and LE groups with respect to LR, DM/DM+LR, 3-year DFS, 3-year LRFS, and 3-year OS. This study has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022331208).

CONCLUSION

The W&W strategy may be preferred for some rectal cancer patients who select LE and reach cCR or near cCR after nCRT or TNT.

Rectal Sparing Approaches after Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Local Excision and Watch and Wait

Local Excision (LE) or Watch and Wait (WW) for patients with complete clinical response or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) were proposed to avoid morbidity and impairment of quality of life after rectal resection. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature, and to compare rectal-sparing approaches, in terms of rectum-preservation rate, local control, and distant recurrences. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed of studies published until July 2022 (PROSPERO, registration CRD42022341480), and the quality of evidence was assessed using a GRADE approach. Seven retrospective studies and one prospective trial were included. In six studies, patients were treated with standard long-course nCRT, and in two with Total Neoadjuvant Therapy (TNT). Overall, there were 213 and 188 patients in WW and LE group, respectively, and no difference was found between WW and LE when considering rectum-preservation rate (OR 0.80 95%CI 0.31-2.01, p = 0.63), local disease (OR 1.60 95%CI 0.75-3.42, p = 0.22), locoregional failure (OR 0.85 95%CI 0.20-3.66, p = 0.83) and distant recurrence (OR 0.76 95%CI 0.37-1.55, p = 0.45). Studies directly comparing WW and LE are still lacking, even though no differences between WW and LE in terms of rectum-preservation, local control, and distant recurrences have been found.

Efficacy and safety of the "watch-and-wait" approach for rectal cancer with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Watch-and-Wait (WW) approach is positioned at the cutting edge of non-invasive approach for rectal cancer patients who achieve clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical, oncologic, and survival outcomes of WW versus radical surgery (RS) and to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and possible superiority of WW.

METHODS

A systematic search for studies comparing WW with RS was conducted on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. After screening for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment, statistical analysis was performed using Stata/SE14.0 software. Permanent colostomy (PC), local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), cancer-related death (CRD), 2-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using fixed effects or random-effects models depending on the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with moderate-high quality involving 1254 patients were included. Of these, 513 patients were managed with WW and 741 patients were subjected to RS. Compared to RS group, WW group had higher rate of LR (odds ratio OR = 11.09, 95% confidence interval CI = 5.30-23.20, P = 0.000), 2-year OS, and 3-year OS and had lower rate of PC (OR = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.05-0.29, P = 0.000). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to DM, CRD, 2-, 3-, and 5-year DFS (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.81-1.03, P = 0.153), or 5-year OS (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.28-3.63, P = 0.988).

CONCLUSION

The WW is a promising treatment approach and is a relatively safe alternative to RS for managing patients with rectal cancer who achieve cCR after nCRT. However, this modality requires rigorous screening criteria and standardized follow-up. Large-scale, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to further verify the outcomes of WW approach.

A meta-analysis of the watch-and-wait strategy versus total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer exhibiting complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Background

Some clinical researchers have reported that patients with cCR (clinical complete response) status after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) could adopt the watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy. Compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, the W&W strategy could achieve a similar overall survival. Could the W&W strategy replace TME surgery as the main treatment option for the cCR patients? By using the meta-analysis method, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of the W&W strategy and TME surgery for rectal cancer exhibiting cCR after nCRT.

Methods

We evaluated two treatment strategies for rectal cancer with cCR after nCRT up to July 2021 by searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases. Clinical data for primary outcomes (local recurrence, cancer-related death and distant metastasis), and secondary outcomes (disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)) were collected to evaluate the efficacy and safety in the two groups.

Results

We included nine studies with 818 patients in the meta-analysis, and there were five moderate-quality studies and four high-quality studies. A total of 339 patients were in the W&W group and 479 patients were in the TME group. The local recurrence rate in the W&W group was greater than that in the TME group in the fixed-effects model (OR 8.54, 95% CI 3.52 to 20.71, P < 0.001). The results of other outcomes were similar in the two groups.

Conclusion

The local recurrence rate of the W&W group was greater than that in the TME group, but other results were similar in the two groups. With the help of physical examination and salvage therapy, the W&W strategy could achieve similar treatment effects with the TME approach.

Trial registration

Protocol registration number: CRD42021244032.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02415-y.

Surgery may not benefit patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieved clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

We compared the long-term outcome of the watch and wait (WW) strategy and surgery in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 84 patients who achieved clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). They were divided into the WW group (n = 58) and surgery group (SG, n = 26). Patients in the SG underwent total mesorectal excision. The study site was the Peking University Cancer Hospital.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were included (58 and 26 in the WW group and SG, respectively). A total of 76·9% of the patients in the SG achieved pathological complete response (pCR) and 23·1% of the patients had a residual tumor. The total recurrence and metastasis rate was 15·4% (4/26) in the SG and 18·9% (11/58) in the WW group. There was no significant difference in the recurrence and metastasis rate between the two groups. In the WW group, 9 cases developed tumor regrowth during follow-up and underwent salvage surgery. The overall survival rate of the WW group (96·6% vs 92·3%) was not significantly different from that of the SG (P > 0·05). The WW patients also retained their anal sphincter function and avoided surgery-related complications.

CONCLUSION

The WW strategy is a feasible treatment option in patients with cCR after NCRT. Surgery may not bring benefits to these cCR patients.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Systemic inflammatory indices predict tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer

Systemic inflammatory responses are associated with the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer. However, the value in predicting tumor responses to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) remains to be elucidated. The current study aimed to investigate the association between systemic inflammatory indices and pathological complete response (pCR). The training and validation cohorts included 225 and 96 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio were recorded prior to nCRT and radical surgery. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to investigate the association between systemic inflammatory indices and pCR. Systemic inflammatory indices prior to or following treatment had no significant association with pCR; however, the percentage change in NLR from pre-nCRT to post-nCRT was associated with a poor response, and a percentage change of >21.5% NLR (P=0.006; OR=0.413; 95% CI=0.22–0.773) was a predictor of poor pCR. Therefore, in rectal cancer, the percentage change in NLR from pre- to post-nCRT was found to be a predictor of poor pCR.

How to measure tumour response in rectal cancer? An explanation of discrepancies and suggestions for improvement

Various methods categorize tumour response after neoadjuvant therapy, including down-staging and tumour regression grading. Response categories allow comparison of different treatments within clinical trials and predict outcome. A reproducible response categorization could identify subgroups with high or low risk for the most appropriate subsequent treatments, like watch and wait. Lack of standardization and interpretation difficulties currently limit the usability of these approaches. In this review we describe these difficulties for the evaluation of chemoradiation in rectal cancer. An alternative approach of tumour response is based on patterns of residual disease, including fragmentation. We summarise the evidence behind this alternative method of response categorisation, which explains a number of very relevant clinical discrepancies. These issues include differences between downstaging and tumour regression, high local regrowth in advanced tumours during watchful waiting procedures, the importance of resection margins, the limited value of post-treatment biopsies and the relatively poor outcome of patients with a near complete pathological response. Recognition of these patterns of response can allow meaningful development of novel biomarkers in the future.