Interval between surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for distal rectal cancer: does delayed surgery have an impact on outcome?

Risks of Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer: Data From Two International Registries on Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery (total mesorectal excision [TME]) among patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR). Nearly 30% of these patients will develop local regrowth (LR). Although salvage resection is frequently feasible, there may be an increased risk for development of subsequent distant metastases (DM). The aim of this study is to compare the risk of DM between patients with LR after Watch and Wait (WW) and patients with near-complete pathologic response (nPCR) managed by TME at the time of reassessment of response.

METHODS

Data from patients enrolled in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) with cCR managed by WW and subsequent LR were compared with patients managed by TME (with ≤10% cancer cells-nPCR) from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project (VIKINGO project). The primary end point was DM-free survival at 3 years from decision to WW or TME. The secondary end point was possible risk factors associated with DM.

RESULTS

Five hundred and eight patients with LR were compared with 893 patients with near-complete response after TME. Overall, DM rate was significantly higher among LRs (22.8% v 10.2%; P ≤ .001). Independent risk factors for DM included LR (v TME at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery. 3-year DM-free survival was significantly worse for patients with LR (75% v 87%; P = .001). When stratified for pathologic stage, patients with LR did significantly worse through all stages (P ≤ .009).

CONCLUSION

Patients with LR appear to have a higher risk for subsequent DM development than patients with nPCR managed by TME at restaging irrespective of final pathology. Leaving the primary undetectable tumor in situ until development of LR may result in worse oncologic outcomes.

Great Debates: Surgery or Watch and Wait After Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer

Locally advanced rectal cancer has traditionally been treated with multimodal therapy including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection. More recent data suggests that in appropriate patients, total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) makes it possible to adopt a "watch and wait" approach. Advocates for watch and wait argue that patients with a complete or near-complete clinical response to TNT have comparable overall and disease-free survival to their counterparts who undergo surgical resection, and also have a better quality of life, fewer complications, and potentially avoid a stoma. The dogma of surgery as regional curative intent therapy has been challenged by similar recurrence rates among those treated with total mesorectal excision (TME) and those treated with watch and wait. Furthermore, those who develop local recurrence in the watch and wait groups are equally salvageable, either by surgery, brachytherapy, or chemotherapy. While watch and wait is not appropriate in all patients, this manuscript highlights the benefits and drawbacks of both therapeutic modalities.

Chemoradiation, Consolidation Chemotherapy, and Watch and Wait for Early Rectal Cancer

As watch and wait has become an attractive management alternative among patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation, the focus of organ preservation has now shifted toward the use of this approach in patients with early rectal cancer. These patients would otherwise be treated without the use of neoadjuvant therapy for oncological reasons. The sole purpose of any neoadjuvant treatment here would be the achievement of a complete clinical response in an attempt to avoid total mesorectal excision. This has become particularly interesting after the incorporation of total neoadjuvant therapy regimens. These regimens have resulted in significantly higher rates of complete tumor regression and therefore become an interesting alternative among early rectal cancer patients where organ preservation is desired. The present review provides an overview of the currently available evidence and the preliminary experience with this rather controversial approach.

Stage IV Rectal Cancer and Timing of Surgical Approach

Liver metastases are seen in at least 60% of patients with colorectal cancer at some point during the course of their disease. The management of both primary and liver disease is uniquely challenging in rectal cancer due to competing treatments and complex sequence of treatments depending on the clinical presentation of disease. Recently, several novel concepts are shaping new treatment paradigms, including changes in timing, sequence, and duration of therapies combined with potential deescalation of treatment components. Overall, the treatment of this clinical scenario mandates multidisciplinary evaluation and personalization of care; however, there is still considerable debate regarding the timing of liver metastasectomy in the context of the overall treatment plan. Herein, we will discuss the current literature on management of rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis, current treatment approaches with respect to chemotherapy, and role of hepatic artery infusion therapy.

Non-operative management of rectal cancer: Highlighting the controversies

There remains much ambiguity on what non-operative management (NOM) of rectal cancer truly entails in terms of the methods to be adopted and the best algorithm to follow. This is clearly shown by the discordance between various national and international guidelines on NOM of rectal cancer. The main aim of the NOM strategy is organ preservation and avoiding unnecessary surgical intervention, which carries its own risk of morbidity. A highly specific and sensitive surveillance program must be devised to avoid patients undergoing unnecessary surgical interventions. In many studies, NOM, often interchangeably called the Watch and Wait strategy, has been shown as a promising treatment option when undertaken in the appropriate patient population, where a clinical complete response is achieved. However, there are no clear guidelines on patient selection for NOM along with the optimal method of surveillance.

Long-Term Results of Organ Preservation in Patients With Rectal Adenocarcinoma Treated With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy: The Randomized Phase II OPRA Trial

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.To assess long-term risk of local tumor regrowth, we report updated organ preservation rate and oncologic outcomes of the OPRA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02008656). Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were randomly assigned to receive induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT). Patients who achieved a complete or near-complete response after finishing treatment were offered watch-and-wait (WW). Total mesorectal excision (TME) was recommended for those who achieved an incomplete response. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary end point was TME-free survival. In total, 324 patients were randomly assigned (INCT-CRT, n = 158; CRT-CNCT, n = 166). Median follow-up was 5.1 years. The 5-year DFS rates were 71% (95% CI, 64 to 79) and 69% (95% CI, 62 to 77) for INCT-CRT and CRT-CNCT, respectively (P = .68). TME-free survival was 39% (95% CI, 32 to 48) in the INCT-CRT group and 54% (95% CI, 46 to 62) in the CRT-CNCT group (P = .012). Of 81 patients with regrowth, 94% occurred within 2 years and 99% occurred within 3 years. DFS was similar for patients who underwent TME after restaging (64% [95% CI, 53 to 78]) and patients in WW who underwent TME after regrowth (64% [95% CI, 53 to 78]; P = .94). Updated analysis continues to show long-term organ preservation in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy. In patients who enter WW, most cases of tumor regrowth occur in the first 2 years.

Rectal cancer - avoiding surgery?

Nonoperative treatment of rectal cancer is gaining popularity. Several trials recently demonstrated advantages in disease-free survival with total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) with the addition of the watch and wait (WW) strategy for locally advanced rectal cancer. On longer follow-up, an unexpected increased risk in local recurrence in the TNT group at the RAPIDO trial suggested early surgery for nonresponding tumours. The WW option is globally accepted for a complete clinical response; however, a high rate of regrowth was found in a registry with an increased risk of distant metastases, questioning the deleterious effect of deferral of surgery in this group. The short- and long-term toxic effects of neoadjuvant treatment are costs to consider in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines compared with the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines, which favour surgery alone if good mesorectal resection is assured with increasing surgical proficiency adjusted to the precise anatomical location.

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

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 ).

Relationship Between Baseline Rectal Tumor Length and Magnetic Resonance Tumor Regression Grade Response to Chemoradiotherapy: A Subanalysis of the TRIGGER Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

It is widely believed that small rectal tumors are more likely to have a good response to neoadjuvant treatment, which may influence the selection of patients for a 'watch and wait' strategy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a relationship between baseline tumor length on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and response to chemoradiotherapy.

METHOD

The 96 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer randomised (2:1-intervention:control) in the TRIGGER feasibility study where eligible. Baseline tumor length was defined as the maximal cranio-caudal length on baseline MRI (mm) and was recorded prospectively at study registration. Magnetic resonance tumor regression grade (mrTRG) assessment was performed on the post-chemoradiotherapy (CRT) MRI 4-6 weeks (no later than 10 weeks) post completion of CRT. This was routinely reported for patients in the intervention (mrTRG-directed management) arm and reported for the purposes of this study by the central radiologist in the control arm patients. Those with an mrTRG I/II response were defined as 'good responders' and those with an mrTRG III-V response were defined as 'poor responders'.

RESULTS

Overall, 94 patients had a post-CRT MRI performed and were included. Forty-three (46%) patients had a good response (mrTRG I/II) and 51 (54%) patients had a poor response (mrTRG III/IV). The median tumor length of good responders was 43 mm versus 50 mm (p < 0.001), with considerable overlap in tumor lengths between groups.

CONCLUSION

Baseline tumor length on MRI is not a clinically useful biomarker to predict mrTRG tumor response to CRT and therefore patient suitability for a deferral of surgery trial.

New Opportunities for Minimizing Toxicity in Rectal Cancer Management

Advances in multimodal management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), consisting of preoperative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy followed by surgery with or without adjuvant chemotherapy, have improved local disease control and patient survival but are associated with significant risk for acute and long-term morbidity. Recently published trials, evaluating treatment dose intensification via the addition of preoperative induction or consolidation chemotherapy (total neoadjuvant therapy [TNT]), have demonstrated improved tumor response rates while maintaining acceptable toxicity. In addition, TNT has led to an increased number of patients achieving a clinical complete response and thus eligible to pursue a nonoperative, organ-preserving, watch and wait approach, thereby avoiding toxicities associated with surgery, such as bowel dysfunction and stoma-related complications. Ongoing trials using immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with mismatch repair-deficient tumors suggest that this subgroup of patients with LARC could potentially be treated with immunotherapy alone, sparing them the toxicity associated with preoperative treatment and surgery. However, the majority of rectal cancers are mismatch repair-proficient and less responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors and require multimodal management. The synergy noted in preclinical studies between immunotherapy and radiotherapy on immunogenic tumor cell death has led to the design of ongoing clinical trials that explore the benefit of combining radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy (mainly of immune checkpoint inhibitors) and aim to increase the number of patients eligible for organ preservation.

Delayed TME Surgery in a Watch-and-Wait Strategy After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: An Analysis of Hospital Costs and Surgical and Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

A watch-and-wait strategy for patients with rectal cancer with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a valuable alternative for rectal resection. However, there are patients who will have residual tumor or regrowth during watch and wait.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate safety and costs for patients who underwent delayed surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a large teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Between January 2015 and May 2020, 622 new rectal cancer patients were seen, of whom 200 received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Ninety-four patients were included, 65 of whom underwent immediate surgery and 29 of whom required delayed surgery after an initial watch-and-wait approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included 30-day postoperative morbidity rate, hospital costs. 2-year overall and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

There was no difference in length of stay (9 vs 8; p = 0.83), readmissions (27.6% vs 10.0%; p = 0.10), surgical re-interventions (15.0% vs 3.4%; p = 0.16), or stoma-free rate (52.6% vs 31.0%; p = 0.09) between immediate and delayed surgery groups. Hospital costs were similar in the delayed group (€11,913 vs €13,769; p = 0.89). Two-year overall survival (93% vs 100%; p = 0.23) and disease-free survival (78% vs 81%; p = 0.47) rates were comparable.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations included small sample size, follow-up time and retrospective design.

CONCLUSION

Delayed surgery for regrowth in a watch-and-wait program or for persistent residual disease after a repeated assessment is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity or a significant rise in costs compared to immediate total mesorectal excision. There also appears to be no evident compromise in oncological outcome. Repeated response assessment in patients with a near complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a useful approach to identify more patients who can benefit from a watch-and-wait strategy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B836 .

CIRUGA DE TME RETRASADA EN UNA ESTRATEGIA DE WATCH AND WAIT DESPUS DE LA QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE PARA CNCER DE RECTO UN ANLISIS DE COSTOS HOSPITALARIOS, Y DE RESULTADOS QUIRRGICOS Y ONCOLGICOS

ANTECEDENTES: Una estrategia de Watch and Wait para pacientes con cáncer de recto con una respuesta clínica completa después de quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante es una alternativa valiosa en vez de resección rectal. Sin embargo, hay pacientes que tendrán tumor residual o un recrecimiento durante el Watch and Wait .OBJETIVO: El objetivo fue investigar la seguridad y los costos para los pacientes que se sometieron a una cirugía diferida después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante.DISEÑO: Este es un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo con datos recolectados prospectivamente.AJUSTE: El estudio se llevó a cabo en un gran hospital universitario.PACIENTES: Entre enero de 2015 y mayo de 2020, se atendieron 622 nuevos pacientes con cáncer de recto, de los cuales 200 recibieron quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante. Se incluyeron 94 pacientes, de los cuales 65 se sometieron a cirugía inmediata y 29 pacientes requirieron cirugía diferida después de un enfoque inicial de observación y espera.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: se incluyeron la tasa de morbilidad posoperatoria a 30 días, los costos hospitalarios y las sobrevidas general y libre de enfermedad a dos años.RESULTADOS: No hubo diferencia en la duración de la estancia (9 vs 8, p = 0,83), reingresos (27,6% vs 10,0%, p = 0,10), reintervenciones quirúrgicas (15,0% vs 3,4%, p = 0,16) y tasa libre de estoma (52,6% vs 31,0%, p = 0,09) entre los grupos de cirugía inmediata y tardía. Los costos hospitalarios fueron similares en el grupo retrasado (11913 € frente a 13769 €, p = 0,89). Las tasas de sobrevida general a dos años (93% frente a 100%, p = 0,23) y sobrevida libre de enfermedad (78% frente a 81%, p = 0,47) fueron comparables.LIMITACIONES: Tamaño de muestra pequeño, tiempo de seguimiento y diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIÓN: La cirugía tardía para el recrecimiento en un programa de Watch and Wait o para la enfermedad residual persistente después de una evaluación repetida no se asocia con un riesgo mayor de morbilidad posoperatoria ni con un aumento significativo en los costos, en comparación con la escisión total de mesorrecto inmediata. Tampoco parece haber un compromiso evidente en el resultado oncológico. La evaluación repetida de la respuesta en pacientes con una respuesta clínica casi completa después de la quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante es un enfoque útil para identificar más pacientes que pueden beneficiarse de una estrategia de Watch and Wait . Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B836 . (Traducción-Dr. Juan Carlos Reyes ).

Watch and Wait Approach for Rectal Cancer

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.

Watch-and-Wait is an Option in Rectal Cancer Patients: From Controversy to Common Clinical Practice

Overview of the introduction of organ preservation in rectal cancer patients and future challenges.

Organ Preservation in Patients With Rectal Adenocarcinoma Treated With Total Neoadjuvant Therapy

PURPOSE

Prospective data on the efficacy of a watch-and-wait strategy to achieve organ preservation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy are limited.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized phase II trial, we assessed the outcomes of 324 patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) and either total mesorectal excision (TME) or watch-and-wait on the basis of tumor response. Patients in both groups received 4 months of infusional fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin or capecitabine-oxaliplatin and 5,000 to 5,600 cGy of radiation combined with either continuous infusion fluorouracil or capecitabine during radiotherapy. The trial was designed as two stand-alone studies with disease-free survival (DFS) as the primary end point for both groups, with a comparison to a null hypothesis on the basis of historical data. The secondary end point was TME-free survival.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 3 years. Three-year DFS was 76% (95% CI, 69 to 84) for the INCT-CRT group and 76% (95% CI, 69 to 83) for the CRT-CNCT group, in line with the 3-year DFS rate (75%) observed historically. Three-year TME-free survival was 41% (95% CI, 33 to 50) in the INCT-CRT group and 53% (95% CI, 45 to 62) in the CRT-CNCT group. No differences were found between groups in local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, or overall survival. Patients who underwent TME after restaging and patients who underwent TME after regrowth had similar DFS rates.

CONCLUSION

Organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME, and postoperative chemotherapy.

Does a long interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery benefit the clinical outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer? A systematic review and meta analyses

PURPOSE

The study aims to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy after 8 weeks (long interval, LI) between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

The PubMed database, EMBASE database, and the Cochrane Library (deadline: September 25, 2021) were searched to select clinical studies that compared two intervals between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer: after 8 weeks (long interval, LI) and within 8 weeks (short interval, SI). The included studies were screened and evaluated according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included, with 9070 cases in the LI group and 14,207 cases in the SI group. The analysis results showed that the pathologic complete response (PCR) rate in the LI group was higher than that in the SI group (P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in the R0 resection rate (P = 0.85), anal preservation rate (P = 0.89), morbidity rate (P = 0.60), anastomotic leakage rate (P = 0.06), operation time (P = 0.58), local recurrence rate (P = 0.56), distant metastasis rate (P = 0.32), or overall survival (OS) rate (P = 0.17) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

A longer interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery can improve the PCR rate; however, it has no significant impact on the clinical efficacy or long-term prognosis. Due to some limitations in the number and quality of the studies, these findings still need to be further verified by multicenter, large-sample high-quality RCTs in the future.

Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: What We Learned in the Last Two Decades and the Future Perspectives

The advancement in surgical techniques, optimization of systemic chemoradiotherapy, and development of refined diagnostic and imaging modalities have brought a phenomenal shift in the treatment of the locally advanced rectal cancer. Although each therapeutic option has shown substantial progress in their field, it is finding their ideal amalgamation which has baffled the clinician and researchers alike. In the effort to identifying the perfect salutary treatment plan, we have even shifted our attention from the trimodal approach to non-operative "watchful waiting" to more recent individualized care. In this article, we acknowledge the scientific progress in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer and compare the opportunities as well as the obstacles while implementing them clinically. We also explore the current challenges and controversies surrounding the multidisciplinary approach and highlight the new trends and recent advances with an ultimate goal to improve the patients' quality of life.

The efficacy and safety of different radiotherapy doses in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer

Background

This study aimed to evaluate efficacy and adverse effects of different radiotherapy (RT) doses in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer.

Methods

Fifty-nine patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in hospital between January 2015 and May 2017 were enrolled in retrospective analysis. The patients were divided into the 56-Gy group and the 50-Gy group. The concurrent chemotherapy regimen was based on capecitabine. All patients received one cycle of oxaliplatin combined with capecitabine induction chemotherapy. All patients completed neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and received radical surgery.

Results

Of the patients in this study, 29 patients and 30 patients received a radiation dose of 56- and 50-Gy, respectively. All clinical characteristics were matched between the two groups. All patients received surgery 6 to 8 weeks after completing RT. The therapeutical effective rate in the 56-Gy group was 93.10% (27/29), compared with 66.67% in the 50-Gy group (20/30); the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (χ²=6.36, P=0.01). The pathological complete remission (pCR) rate in the 56-Gy group (37.93%, 11/29) was statistically significantly higher than that in the 50-Gy group (13.33%, 4/30) (χ²=4.71, P=0.030). The anal preservation rate in the 56-Gy group (65.5%, 19/29) was statistically significantly higher than that in the 50-Gy group (33.33%, 10/30) (χ²=6.11, P=0.01). The 56-Gy group had a local recurrence rate of 0% (0/29) and a distant metastasis rate of 10.34% (3/29), while the 50-Gy group had a local recurrence rate of 6.67% (2/30) and a distant metastasis rate of 16.67% (5/30); no significant difference existed between the two groups (χ²=2.00, 0.50, P=0.16, 0.48). The incidence of adverse reactions (gastrointestinal reactions, bone marrow suppression, and perianal skin reactions) in the 56-Gy group was not significantly different from that in the 50-Gy group (P>0.05).

Conclusions

Increasing the radiation dose can significantly improve the anal preservation and pCR rates of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, thus improving their life quality. Moreover, it does not increase the rates of recurrence or adverse reactions. Our findings have certain clinical significance, but further prospective study is needed.

Is Metformin Associated With Improved Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer?

Efforts to determine whether metformin can increase the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer have increased in recent years. However, retrospective studies have yielded inconclusive results.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes and survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer taking metformin versus in those not taking metformin.

METHODS

This study analyzed 423 consecutive patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and curative surgery between January 2010 and May 2020; of these, 59 were taking metformin and 364 were not taking metformin.

RESULTS

Patients taking metformin had a lower proportion of tumor regression (6.8% versus 22.0%, P = 0.012) as well as a lower proportion of patients achieving a pathological complete response (6.8% versus 20.6%, P = 0.011). In the multivariate analysis, independent predictors of pathologic complete response were not taking metformin (OR: 5.26, 95% CI: 1.12-24.85, P= 0.035) and cT2 stage (OR: 3.49, 95% CI: 1.10-11.07, P= 0.034); the interval was also an independent predictor of tumor regression (OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.06-2.96, P= 0.028). No differences were observed in survival between groups.

CONCLUSION

Metformin was not associated with better tumor responses or survival after neoadjuvant treatment.

Temporal determinants of tumour response to neoadjuvant rectal radiotherapy

Introduction

In locally advanced rectal cancer, longer delay to surgery after neoadjuvant radiotherapy increases the likelihood of histopathological tumour response. Chronomodulated radiotherapy in rectal cancer has recently been reported as a factor increasing tumour response to neoadjuvant treatment in patients having earlier surgery, with patients receiving a larger proportion of afternoon treatments showing improved response. This paper aims to replicate this work by exploring the impact of these two temporal factors, independently and in combination, on histopathological tumour response in rectal cancer patients.

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who received long course (≥24 fractions) neoadjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy at a tertiary referral centre was conducted. Delay to surgery and radiotherapy treatment time were correlated to clinicopathologic characteristics with a particular focus on tumour regression grade. A review of the literature and meta-analysis were also conducted to ascertain the impact of time to surgery from preoperative radiotherapy on tumour regression.

Results

From a cohort of 367 patients, 197 patients met the inclusion criteria. Complete pathologic response (AJCC regression grade 0) was seen in 46 (23%) patients with a further 44 patients (22%) having at most small groups of residual cells (AJCC regression grade 1). Median time to surgery was 63 days, and no statistically significant difference was seen in tumour regression between patients having early or late surgery. There was a non-significant trend towards a larger proportion of morning treatments in patients with grade 0 or 1 regression (p = 0.077). There was no difference in tumour regression when composite groups of the two temporal variables were analysed. Visualisation of data from 39 reviewed papers (describing 27379 patients) demonstrated a plateau of response to neoadjuvant radiotherapy after approximately 60 days, and a meta-analysis found improved complete pathologic response in patients having later surgery.

Conclusions

There was no observed benefit of chronomodulated radiotherapy in our cohort of rectal cancer patients. Review of the literature and meta-analysis confirms the benefit of delayed surgery, with a plateau in complete response rates at approximately 60-days between completion of radiotherapy and surgery. In our cohort, time to surgery for the majority of our patients lay along this plateau and this may be a more dominant factor in determining response to neoadjuvant therapy, obscuring any effects of chronomodulation on tumour response. We would recommend surgery be performed between 8 and 11 weeks after completion of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Neoadjuvant Therapy and Surgery in Rectal Adenocarcinoma: Analysis of Patients with Complete Tumor Remission

Introduction: the standard treatment for locally advanced extra-peritoneal rectal adenocarcinoma, consists of neoadjuvant treatment with radiotherapy and chemotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision.

Objective: evaluate, retrospectively, the patients submitted to neoadjuvant therapy and surgery that presents with total remission of the lesion in the anatomopathological examination.

Methods: between 2000 and 2010, 212 patients underwent surgery at the Coloproctology Unit at DMAD at FCM–UNICAMP. They were grouped as: rectosigmoidectomy and colorectal anastomosis (n = 54), rectosigmoidectomy with coloanal anastomosis (n = 41), 114 abdominoperineal resection of the rectum (n = 114) and other (n = 3).

Results: thirty (14.2%) patients (mean age 57.6 years; 60% males) showed complete remission of the rectal lesion. 4 (13.3%) had compromised lymph nodes and/or lymphatic invasion

At follow-up (mean 51.9 months), 4 (13.3%) presented with local recurrence (one patient) or distant metastases (two patients had liver metastasis, one had liver and lung, and one had bone metastasis). The mean survival was 86.7%.

Conclusion: patients with a complete tumor response show ed an increased survival rate, however, the same patients without evidence of residual tumors could develop local recurrence or distant metastases on a later follow-up.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy affects postoperative outcomes and functional results in patients treated with transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to quantify the incidence of short-term postoperative complications and functional disorders at 1 year from transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for rectal neoplasms, to compare patients treated with TEM alone and with TEM after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and to analyse factors influencing postoperative morbidity and functional outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on all patients treated with TEM for rectal neoplasms at our institution in January 2000-December 2017. Data from a prospectively maintained database were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups: adenoma or early rectal cancer (no CRT group) and locally advanced extraperitoneal rectal cancer with major or complete clinical response after preoperative CRT (CRT group). Short-term postoperative mortality and morbidity and the functional results at 1 year were recorded. The two groups were compared, and a statistical analysis of factors influencing postoperative morbidity and functional outcomes was performed. Functional outcome was also evaluated with the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score (0-20 no LARS, 21-29 minor LARS and 30-42 major LARS).

RESULTS

One hundred and thirteen patients (71 males, 42 females, median age 64 years [range 41-80 years]) were included in the study (46 in the CRT group). The overall postoperative complication rate was 23.0%, lower in the noCRT group (p < 0.001), but only 2.7% were grade ≥ 3. The most frequent complication was suture dehiscence (17.6%), which occurred less frequently in the noCRT group (p < 0.001). At 1 year from TEM, the most frequent symptoms was urgency (11.9%, without significant differences between the CRT group and the noCRT group); the noCRT group experienced a lower rate of soiling than the CRT group (0% vs. 7.7%; p: 0.027). The incidence of LARS was evaluated in 47 patients from May 2012 on and was 21.3% occurring less frequently in the noCRT group (10% vs. 41.2%; p: 0.012). Only 6.4% of the patients evaluated experienced major LARS. In multivariate analysis, preoperative CRT significantly worsened postoperative morbidity and functional outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

TEM is a safe procedure associated with only low risk of severe postoperative complications and major LARS. Preoperative CRT seems to increase the rate of postoperative morbidity after TEM and led to worse functional outcomes at 1 year after surgery.

Adding Three Cycles of CAPOX after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Increases the Rates of Complete Response for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

the total neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (TNT) includes different strategies, but the most appropriate model remains uncertain. The purpose of this retrospectively study was to evaluate the safety and pathological response in the consolidation chemotherapy model.

METHODS

patients with cT3/T4 or TxN + M0 rectal cancer that were receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) (50 Gy with oral capecitabine)/TNT (CRT followed by three cycles of CAPOX) during September 2017 to September 2019 in our department were included. All of the patients were recommended to receive radical surgery.

RESULTS

a total of 197 patients were included. Eighty-one patients received CRT, while one hundred and sixteen patients received TNT. Nine patients did not undergo surgery because of the distant metastases (one patient (1.2%) in CRT group, two patients (1.7%) in TNT group) or a refusal of resection (two patients in CRT group, four patients in TNT group). The pathological complete response (pCR) rate was 32.7% in TNT compared with 12.8% in CRT (p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in grade 3 acute toxicities of neoadjuvant treatment and surgical complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

the consolidation chemotherapy model is safe for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and it has a high pCR rate. The long-term follow-up is necessary to be evaluated in a future prospective, randomized trial.

Total Neoadjuvant Therapy vs Standard Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Standard therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer includes concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (CRT plus A). An alternative strategy known as total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) involves administration of CRT plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery with the goal of delivering uninterrupted systemic therapy to eradicate micrometastases. A comparison of these 2 approaches has not been systematically reviewed previously.

Objective

To determine the differences in rates of pathologic complete response (PCR), disease-free and overall survival, sphincter-preserving surgery, and ileostomy between patients receiving TNT vs standard CRT plus A.

Data Sources

MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase (via OVID) were searched from inception through July 1, 2020, for the following terms: anal/anorectal neoplasms OR anal/anorectal cancer AND total neoadjuvant treatment OR total neoadjuvant therapy. Only studies in English were included.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials or prospective/retrospective cohort studies comparing outcomes in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who received TNT vs CRT plus A.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data regarding the first author, publication year, location, sample size, and rates of PCR, sphincter-preserving surgery, ileostomy, and disease-free and overall survival were extracted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and pooled using a random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates of PCR, sphincter-preserving surgery, ileostomy, and disease-free and overall survival.

Results

After reviewing 2165 reports, 7 unique studies including a total of 2416 unique patients, of whom 1206 received TNT, were selected. The median age for the patients receiving TNT ranged from 57 to 69 years, with 58% to 73% being male. The pooled prevalence of PCR was 29.9% (range, 17.2%-38.5%) in the TNT group and 14.9% (range, 4.2%-21.3%) in the CRT plus A group. Total neoadjuvant therapy was associated with a higher chance of achieving a PCR (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; 95% CI, 1.99-2.98). No statistically significant difference in the proportion of sphincter-preserving surgery (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.73-1.54) or ileostomy (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.46) between recipients of TNT and CRT plus A was observed. Only 3 studies presented data on disease-free survival, and pooled analysis showed significantly higher odds of improved disease-free survival in patients who received TNT (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.20-3.56; I2 = 49%). Data on overall survival were not consistently reported.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that TNT is a promising strategy in locally advanced rectal cancer, with superior rates of PCR compared with standard therapy. However, the long-term effect on disease recurrence and overall survival needs to be explored in future studies.

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.

Induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about whether additional induction chemotherapy (ICT) before neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) yields improved oncological outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare ICT+ NCRT+ surgery(S) with NCRT+ S in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and China Biology Medicine (CBM) databases. The data were analyzed with Stata version 12.0 software.

RESULTS

We identified 9 relevant trials that enrolled 1538 patients. We detected no significant difference in the 5-year overall survival (OS) (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.48-4.64), disease-free survival (DFS) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.73-1.46), local recurrence (LR) (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45-1.43), and distant metastasis (DM) rates (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.55-1.93) between patients who did and did not receive ICT. The addition of ICT before NCRT had a similar pathological complete response rate compared to NCRT (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.90-1.77). Our findings suggest that between the ICT + NCRT+S and NCRT+S groups, ICT improved the incidence of grade 3 to 4 toxicity effects (OR 4.81, 95% CI 2.38-9.37), but between the ICT + NCRT+S and NCRT+S+ adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) groups, ICT might reduce toxicity (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.50). ICT had no significant impact on surgical complications (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63-1.51).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of ICT before NCRT seemingly shows no survival benefit on patients with LARC, and might increase the toxicity.

Delaying surgery by more than 10 weeks after long-course neoadjuvant radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer patients improves pathologic complete response

BACKGROUND

We currently do not know the optimal time interval between the end of chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Longer intervals have been associated with a higher pathological response rate, worse pathological outcomes and more morbidity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect and safety of the current trend of increasing time interval between the end of chemoradiotherapy and surgery (< 10 weeks vs. ≥ 10 weeks) on postoperative morbidity and pathological outcomes. This study analyzed 232 consecutive patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy from January 2012 to August 2018. 125 patients underwent surgery before 10 weeks from the end of chemoradiotherapy (Group 1) and 107 patients underwent surgery after 10 or more weeks after the end of chemoradiotherapy (Group 2). Results have shown that wait for ≥ 10 weeks did not compromise surgical safety. Pathological complete response and tumor stage was statistically significant among groups. The effect of wait for ≥ 10 weeks before surgery shown higher tumor regression than the first group (Group 1, 12.8% vs Group 2, 31.8%; p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, wait for ≥ 10 weeks was associated with pathological compete response. Patients from the second group were four time more likely to achieve pathologic complete response than patients from the first group (OR, 4.27 95%CI 1.60-11.40; p = 0.004). Patients who undergo surgery after ≥ 10 weeks of the end of chemoradiotherapy are four time more likely to achieve complete tumor remission without compromise surgical safety or postoperative morbidity.

Short-Term Clinical and Oncological Outcome of Prolonging Operation Interval After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Middle and Low Rectal Cancer

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short-term clinical and oncological outcome of prolonging operation interval to 11 weeks after the end of radiotherapy for locally advanced middle and low rectal cancer.

Methods

A total of 123 patients with stage II/III (cT3/T4 or N+) low and middle rectal cancer who had undergone operation after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were selected. According to the interval time between the last radiotherapy and operation, they were assigned to a short-interval group (SG, <11 weeks, n=66) and long-interval group (LG, ≥11 weeks, n=57). The relations among interval time and short-term clinical outcome and oncological outcome were analyzed.

Results

The analysis found that basic information, clinical characteristics, and preoperative treatment between the two groups had no significant difference. There were no differences in operation time, estimated intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications. The rate of sphincter preservation in the low and middle rectum was 66.7% in the short-interval group and 59.7% in the long-interval group (P=0.42). The incidence of anastomotic leak in the long-interval group was higher than that in the short-interval group (P=0.08). There was no significant difference in the recovery time of intestinal function and median duration of hospitalization between the two groups. The pathological complete remission rate was 17.07%. Multivariate analysis showed interval time had no influence on pathological complete remission. There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival and 3-year disease-free survival between the two groups. The risk of recurrence and metastasis in patients with positive lymph nodes was higher than those with negative lymph nodes (P<0.05), HR=4.812 (95% CI 2.4–9.648).

Conclusion

Prolonging the interval time of operation to 11 weeks after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for middle and low rectal cancer does not improve the pathologic complete remission, morbidity, and mortality. There was no significant effect on oncologic outcome after prolonging the operation interval. Therefore, it is safe to prolong the interval of operation to 11 weeks.

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.

Impact of delaying surgery after chemoradiation in rectal cancer: outcomes from a tertiary cancer centre in India

Background

Delaying surgery after chemoradiation is one of the strategies for increasing tumor regression in rectal cancer. Tumour regression and PCR are known to have positive impact on survival.

Methods

It's a retrospective study of 161 patients undergoing surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Patients were divided into three categories based on the gap between NCRT and surgery, i.e., <8, 8-12 and >12 weeks. Tumor regression grades (TRG), sphincter preservation, post-operative morbidity-mortality and survival were evaluated.

Results

Sphincter preservation was significantly less in >12 weeks group compared to the other two groups (P=0.003). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in >12 weeks group compared to 8-12 weeks group (P=0.001).There was no difference in major postoperative morbidity and hospital stay among the groups. There was no significant correlation between delay and TRG (P=0.644). At Median follow up of 49.5 months the projected 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) were not significantly different among the 3 groups (OS: 79.5% vs. 83.3% vs. 76.5%; P=0.849 and DFS 50.4% vs. 70.6% vs. 62%; P=0.270 respectively).

Conclusions

Delaying surgery by more than 12 weeks causes more blood loss but no change in morbidity or hospital stay. Increased time interval between radiation and surgery does not improve tumor regression and has no effect on survival.

Gastrointestinal Malignancies and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence-Based Triage to Surgery

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread cancelation of electively scheduled surgeries, including for colorectal, pancreatic, and gastric cancer. The American College of Surgeons and the Society of Surgical Oncology have released guidelines for triage of these procedures. We seek to synthesize available evidence on delayed resection and oncologic outcomes, while also providing a critical assessment of the released guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify literature between 2005 and 2020 investigating the impact of time to surgery on oncologic outcomes in colorectal, pancreatic, and gastric cancer.

RESULTS

For colorectal cancer, 1066 abstracts were screened and 43 papers were included. In primarily resected colon cancer, delay over 30 to 40 days is associated with lower survival. In rectal cancer, time to surgery over 7 to 8 weeks following neoadjuvant therapy is associated with decreased survival. Three hundred ninety-four abstracts were screened for pancreatic cancer and nine studies were included. Two studies demonstrate increased unexpected progression with delayed surgery over 30 days. Out of 633 abstracts screened for gastric cancer, six studies were included. No identified study demonstrated worse survival with increased time to surgery.

CONCLUSION

Moderate evidence suggests that delayed resection of colorectal cancer worsens survival; the impact of time to surgery on gastric and pancreatic cancer outcomes is uncertain. Early resection of gastrointestinal malignancies provides the best chance for curative therapy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritization of procedures should account for available evidence on time to surgery and oncologic outcomes.

SPAR - a randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial of simvastatin in addition to standard chemotherapy and radiation in preoperative treatment for rectal cancer: an AGITG clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Retrospective studies show improved outcomes in colorectal cancer patients if taking statins, including overall survival, pathological response of rectal cancer to preoperative chemoradiotherapy (pCRT), and reduced acute and late toxicities of pelvic radiation. Major tumour regression following pCRT has strong prognostic significance and can be assessed in vivo using MRI-based tumour regression grading (mrTRG) or after surgery using pathological TRG (pathTRG).

METHODS

A double-blind phase 2 trial will randomise 222 patients planned to receive long-course fluoropyrimidine-based pCRT for rectal adenocarcinoma at 18+ sites in New Zealand and Australia. Patients will receive simvastatin 40 mg or placebo daily for 90 days starting 1 week prior to standard pCRT. Pelvic MRI 6 weeks after pCRT will assess mrTRG grading prior to surgery. The primary objective is rates of favourable (grades 1-2) mrTRG following pCRT with simvastatin compared to placebo, considering mrTRG in 4 ordered categories (1, 2, 3, 4-5). Secondary objectives include comparison of: rates of favourable pathTRG in resected tumours; incidence of toxicity; compliance with intended pCRT and trial medication; proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection; cancer outcomes and pathological scores for radiation colitis. Tertiary objectives include: association between mrTRG and pathTRG grouping; inter-observer agreement on mrTRG scoring and pathTRG scoring; studies of T-cell infiltrates in diagnostic biopsies and irradiated resected normal and malignant tissue; and the effect of simvastatin on markers of systemic inflammation (modified Glasgow prognostic score and the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio). Trial recruitment commenced April 2018.

DISCUSSION

When completed this study will be able to observe meaningful differences in measurable tumour outcome parameters and/or toxicity from simvastatin. A positive result will require a larger RCT to confirm and validate the merit of statins in the preoperative management of rectal cancer. Such a finding could also lead to studies of statins in conjunction with chemoradiation in a range of other malignancies, as well as further exploration of possible mechanisms of action and interaction of statins with both radiation and chemotherapy. The translational substudies undertaken with this trial will provisionally explore some of these possible mechanisms, and the tissue and data can be made available for further investigations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZ Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12617001087347. (www.anzctr.org.au, registered 26/7/2017) Protocol Version: 1.1 (June 2017).

Effect of interval between preoperative radiotherapy and surgery on clinical outcome and radiation proctitis in rectal cancer from FOWARC trial

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the interval between CRT and surgery on radiation proctitis, the pathologic response, and postoperative morbidity.

Methods

This was a cohort study from a phase III, randomized controlled trial (FOWARC study, NCT01211210). Data were retrieved from the leading center of the trial. Patients were divided into the short‐interval (≤7 weeks) group and the long‐interval (>7 weeks) group. The rate of radiation proctitis, pathologic complete regression (pCR) and morbidities were calculated for each group. Multivariate analysis was used to verify the impact of interval on radiation proctitis.

Results

Surgery was performed in 60 patients after an interval of ≤7 weeks and in 97 patients after an interval of >7 weeks. The two groups according to interval were comparable in terms of baseline demographic and clinicotherapeutic characteristics. Radiation proctitis was identified by imaging in 9 (15.0%) patients in short‐interval group and in 31 (32.0%) patients in long‐interval group (P = .018). Multivariate analysis confirmed the correlation between long interval and radiation proctitis (P = .018). The long interval was significantly associated with longer median operation time compared to the short interval (P = .022). The rates of pCR and postoperative complications were not different between two groups.

Conclusions

A longer interval after CRT may be associated with higher rate of radiation proctitis and longer operation time. Moreover it did not increase the rate of pCR.

Radiation therapy for rectal cancer

Radiotherapy (RT) has remained an important pillar in the multi-modality management of rectal cancer. Adjuvant RT with concurrent chemotherapy (chemo-RT) was once the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer, but with time, that has now changed and neoadjuvant chemo-RT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery is the new standard. Alternatively, neoadjuvant RT alone remains an option and clinicians are tasked to choose between the two. In an era of personalised oncological management, it is unsurprising that the treatment for rectal cancer is following suit and upcoming trials are studying ways to improve outcomes and minimise toxicity for patients while tailoring treatments specific to each patient's tumour. We review the evolution of the role of RT in rectal cancer and look forward to what the future holds.

Changes in the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer from 2009 to 2015 and associated improvements in short-term outcomes

AIM

Significant recent changes in management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) include preoperative staging, use of extended neoadjuvant therapies and minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This study was aimed at characterizing these changes and associated short-term outcomes.

METHOD

We retrospectively analysed treatment and outcome data from patients with T3/4 or N+ LARC ≤ 15 cm from the anal verge who were evaluated at a comprehensive cancer centre in 2009-2015.

RESULTS

In total, 798 patients were identified and grouped into five cohorts based on treatment year: 2009-2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014-2015. Temporal changes included increased reliance on MRI staging, from 57% in 2009-2010 to 98% in 2014-2015 (P < 0.001); increased use of total neoadjuvant therapy, from 17% to 76% (P < 0.001); and increased use of MIS, from 33% to 70% (P < 0.001). Concurrently, median hospital stay decreased (from 7 to 5 days; P < 0.001), as did the rates of Grade III-V complications (from 13% to 7%; P < 0.05), surgical site infections (from 24% to 8%; P < 0.001), anastomotic leak (from 11% to 3%; P < 0.05) and positive circumferential resection margin (from 9% to 4%; P < 0.05). TNM downstaging increased from 62% to 74% (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Shifts toward MRI-based staging, total neoadjuvant therapy and MIS occurred between 2009 and 2015. Over the same period, treatment responses improved, and lengths of stay and the incidence of complications decreased.

Timing of surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiation in rectal cancer: a retrospective analysis from an academic medical center

Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) has been shown to achieve decreased local recurrence (LR) with lower toxicity in rectal cancer patients, but data confirming the optimal timing of surgery following this therapy is less robust.

Methods

The University of Iowa Cancer Registry was queried to identify all patients with stages II-III rectal cancer who received nCRT and surgery from 2000 through 2012. Primary endpoints were time interval to surgery (TI), and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included pathologic outcomes, perioperative morbidities and postoperative complications. Patient characteristics and treatment regimens were compared. Univariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to study the association between TI and OS. Associations of TI with secondary endpoints were tested using Chi-square tests of association.

Results

Eighty-seven patients presented with stages II-III rectal cancer. Mean TI was 9.92 weeks. There was no significant association between TI and OS when comparing <8 to ≥8 weeks (P=0.23) or when considering the interval as a continuous variable (P=0.85). Increased LOS [median 7.00 days, P=0.05, HR 1.03 (1.00-1.06)] did correlate with worse survival outcomes. Delaying surgery beyond 8 weeks was associated with increased risk for wound infection (P=0.05).

Conclusions

OS was not influenced by longer intervals between nCRT and surgery. Delaying surgery beyond 8 weeks was associated with increased risk for wound infection.

Meta-analysis of the effect of extending the interval after long-course chemoradiotherapy before surgery in locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The current standard of care in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). Surgery is conventionally performed approximately 6-8 weeks after nCRT. This study aimed to determine the effect on outcomes of extending this interval.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed for studies reporting oncological results that compared the classical interval (less than 8 weeks) from the end of nCRT to TME with a minimum 8-week interval in patients with LARC. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathological complete response (pCR). Secondary endpoints were recurrence-free survival, local recurrence and distant metastasis rates, R0 resection rates, completeness of TME, margin positivity, sphincter preservation, stoma formation, anastomotic leak and other complications. A meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

Twenty-six publications, including four RCTs, with 25 445 patients were identified. A minimum 8-week interval was associated with increased odds of pCR (odds ratio (OR) 1·41, 95 per cent c.i. 1·30 to 1·52; P < 0·001) and tumour downstaging (OR 1·18, 1·05 to 1·32; P = 0·004). R0 resection rates, TME completeness, lymph node yield, sphincter preservation, stoma formation and complication rates were similar between the two groups. The increased rate of pCR translated to reduced distant metastasis (OR 0·71, 0·54 to 0·93; P = 0·01) and overall recurrence (OR 0·76, 0·58 to 0·98; P = 0·04), but not local recurrence (OR 0·83, 0·49 to 1·42; P = 0·50).

CONCLUSION

A minimum 8-week interval from the end of nCRT to TME increases pCR and downstaging rates, and improves recurrence-free survival without compromising surgical morbidity.

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.

Role of the Interval from Completion of Neoadjuvant Therapy to Surgery in Postoperative Morbidity in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Increasing the interval from completion of neoadjuvant therapy to surgery beyond 8 weeks is associated with increased response of rectal cancer to neoadjuvant therapy. However, reports are conflicting on whether extending the time to surgery is associated with increased perioperative morbidity.

METHODS

Patients who presented with a tumor within 15 cm of the anal verge in 2009-2015 were grouped according to the interval between completion of neoadjuvant therapy and surgery: < 8 weeks, 8-12 weeks, and 12-16 weeks.

RESULTS

Among 607 patients, the surgery was performed at < 8 weeks in 317 patients, 8-12 weeks in 229 patients, and 12-16 weeks in 61 patients. Patients who underwent surgery at 8-12 weeks and patients who underwent surgery at < 8 weeks had comparable rates of complications (37% and 44%, respectively). Univariable analysis identified male sex, earlier date of diagnosis, tumor location within 5 cm of the anal verge, open operative approach, abdominoperineal resection, and use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy alone to be associated with higher rates of complications. In multivariable analysis, male sex, tumor location within 5 cm of the anal verge, open operative approach, and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy administered alone were independently associated with the presence of a complication. The interval between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery was not an independent predictor of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Delaying surgery beyond 8 weeks from completion of neoadjuvant therapy does not appear to increase surgical morbidity in rectal cancer patients.

Efficacy and safety of consolidation chemotherapy during the resting period in patients with local advanced rectal cancer

It remains controversial as to whether a long interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) and surgery may provide clinical benefits for patients with local advanced rectal cancer (LARC). The addition of consolidation chemotherapy during the resting period was recently considered as a treatment option. The present study aimed to verify the efficacy and safety of consolidation chemotherapy during the resting period in patients with LARC. A total of 156 patients with local advanced stage T3-4N0-2 rectal cancer were enrolled between January 2010 and July 2016. Patients were divided into two groups, those who received consolidation chemotherapy prior to surgery (n=76) and the control group who did not (n=80). Multivariate logistic regression and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to explore the predictors of pathological complete response (pCR) and survival. The demographic and tumor characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The consolidation group yielded significantly higher pCR and near pCR rates compared with the control group (P=0.015). Patients in the consolidation group who also underwent standard adjuvant chemotherapy displayed improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) compared with the control group (P=0.036). Notably, the addition of consolidation chemotherapy between NCRT and surgery did not significantly increase the incidence of surgical complications and grade 3 or 4 toxicities when compared with the control group. Consolidation chemotherapy was associated with increased pCR/near pCR rates and improved 3-year DFS, and displayed a manageable safety profile. The present study provided primary evidence for the efficacy and safety of consolidation chemotherapy in LARC. Further prospective studies are warranted in the future to verify these results.

Optimal Time Interval for Surgery After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Analysis of Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service Data

Purpose

Pathologic downstaging of rectal cancer has been suggested to be associated with the time interval from chemoradiotherapy (CRT) completion to surgery. We aimed to evaluate the effect of this time interval for patients with rectal cancer on the pathologic response.

Methods

All patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant CRT with evaluable data were selected from among the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service data. Patients were divided into groups according to the time between CRT and surgery. CRT responses were analyzed.

Results

Two hundred forty-nine patients were included, of whom 86 (34.5%) were in the 5- to 7-week interval, 113 (45.4%) in the 7- to 9-week interval, 38 (15.3%) in the 9- to 11-week interval, and 12 (4.8%) in the >11-week interval. The median time interval between CRT completion and surgery was 7.4 weeks (range: 5–22.7 weeks; interquartile range, 6.7–8.7 weeks). Surgery 9–11 weeks after CRT completion resulted in the highest, but not statistically significant, pathologic complete response (pCR) rate (3 patients, 8.6%; P = 0.886), no pCR was noted in the >11-week interval group. Results for downstaging in the 9- to 11-week interval group were as follows: T downstaging, 38.2% (P = 0.735); N downstaging, 50.0% (P = 0.439); and TN downstaging, 52.9% (P = 0.087). The 3-year overall survival rates for the 5- to 7-week, 7- to 9-week, 9- to 11-week, and >11-week interval groups were 93.0%, 85.0%, 81.6%, and 91.7%, respectively (P = 0.326).

Conclusion

Delaying surgery by 9 to 11 weeks may increase TN downstaging, but delaying for over 11 weeks may not increase additional tumor downstaging from long-course CRT.

Is long interval from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to surgery optimal for rectal cancer in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy?: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) and surgery on therapeutic and adverse effects of surgery, and long-term outcome of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (RC), in the era of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with stage II-III RC and treated with IMRT-based NACRT followed by radical surgery were enrolled consecutively from April 2011 to March 2014. The data of all the patients were collected prospectively and grouped according to their NACRT-to-surgery interval. The therapeutic and adverse effects of surgery, and survivals were compared between the patients with interval ≤7 weeks and those with interval ≥8 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients were eligible for analysis, including 106 cases with interval ≤7 weeks and 125 cases with interval ≥8 weeks. The therapeutic and adverse effects of surgery were similar between these two groups of patients. However, interval ≥8 weeks appeared to lead to poorer overall, distant-metastasis-free and disease-free survivals, compared with interval ≤7 weeks. The HRs were 1.805, 1.714, and 1.796 (P-values were 0.045, 0.049, and 0.028), respectively.

CONCLUSION

For patients with locally advanced RC, a long NACRT-to-surgery interval might bring a potential risk of increased distant metastasis rather than a better tumor regression in the era of IMRT.

Adoption of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Importance

Treatment of locally advanced rectal (LARC) cancer involves chemoradiation, surgery, and chemotherapy. The concept of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), in which chemoradiation and chemotherapy are administered prior to surgery, has been developed to optimize delivery of effective systemic therapy aimed at micrometastases.

Objective

To compare the traditional approach of preoperative chemoradiation (chemoRT) followed by postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with the more recent TNT approach for LARC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort analysis using Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) records from 2009 to 2015 was carried out. A total of 811 patients who presented with LARC (T3/4 or node-positive) were identified.

Exposures

Of the 811 patients, 320 received chemoRT with planned adjuvant chemotherapy and 308 received TNT (induction fluorouracil- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy followed by chemoRT).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Treatment and outcome data for the 2 cohorts were compared. Dosing and completion of prescribed chemotherapy were assessed on the subset of patients who received all therapy at MSK.

Results

Of the 628 patients overall, 373 (59%) were men and 255 (41%) were women, with a mean (SD) age of 56.7 (12.9) years. Of the 308 patients in the TNT cohort, 181 (49%) were men and 127 (49%) were women. Of the 320 patients in the chemoRT with planned adjuvant chemotherapy cohort, 192 (60%) were men and 128 (40%) were women. Patients in the TNT cohort received greater percentages of the planned oxaliplatin and fluorouracil prescribed dose than those in the chemoRT with planned adjuvant chemotherapy cohort. The complete response (CR) rate, including both pathologic CR (pCR) in those who underwent surgery and sustained clinical CR (cCR) for at least 12 months posttreatment in those who did not undergo surgery, was 36% in the TNT cohort compared with 21% in the chemoRT with planned adjuvant chemotherapy cohort.

Conclusions and Relevance

Our findings provide additional support for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines that categorize TNT as a viable treatment strategy for rectal cancer. Our data suggest that TNT facilitates delivery of planned systemic therapy. Long-term follow-up will determine if this finding translates into improved survival. In addition, given its high CR rate, TNT may facilitate nonoperative treatment strategies aimed at organ preservation.

Putting down the scalpel in rectal cancer management - a historical perspective

The surgical management of rectal cancer has evolved from a disease without any possibility of cure in the early 1700s where surgical management consisted of the palliative drainage of disease related abscesses to the present day where surgical cure is not only possible but also possible with sphincter or even organ preservation. Prof Habr-Gama's lecture describes the evolution of the surgical management of rectal cancer and the current focus on organ preservation.

Watch-and-Wait as a Therapeutic Strategy in Rectal Cancer

Purpose of Review

Pathological complete response is seen in approximately one fifth of rectal cancer patients following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Since these patients have excellent oncological outcomes, there has been a rapidly growing interest in organ preservation for those who develop a clinical complete response. We review the watch-and-wait strategy and focus on all aspects of this hot topic, including who should be considered for this approach, how should we identify treatment response and what are the expected outcomes.

Recent Findings

The major challenges in interpreting the data on watch-and-wait are the significant heterogeneity of patients selected for this approach and of methods employed to identify them. The evidence available comes mostly from retrospective cohort studies, but has shown good oncological outcomes, including the rate of successful salvage surgery, locoregional control and overall survival.

Summary

There is currently not enough and not robust enough evidence to support watch-and-wait as a standard approach, outside a clinical trial, for patients achieving clinical complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Furthermore, there is a lack of data on long-term outcomes. However, the results we have so far are promising, and there is therefore an urgent need for randomised control studies such as the TRIGGER trial to confirm the safety of this strategy.

Effect of Interval (7 or 11 weeks) Between Neoadjuvant Radiochemotherapy and Surgery on Complete Pathologic Response in Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial (GRECCAR-6)

Purpose A pathologic complete response (pCR; ypT0N0) of a rectal tumor after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) is associated with an excellent prognosis. Several retrospective studies have investigated the effect of increasing the delay after RCT. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of increasing the interval between the end of RCT and surgery on the pCR rate. Methods GRECCAR6 was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group controlled trial. Patients with cT3/T4 or Tx N+ tumors of the mid or lower rectum who had received RCT (45 to 50 Gy with fluorouracil or capecitabine) were included. Patients were randomly included in the 7-week or the 11-week (11w) group. Primary end point was the pCR rate defined as a ypT0N0 specimen (NCT01648894). Results A total of 265 patients from 24 centers were enrolled between October 2012 and February 2015. The majority of the tumors were cT3 (82%). After RCT, surgery was not performed in nine patients (3.4%) because of the occurrence of distant metastasis (n = 5) or other reasons. Two patients underwent local resection of the tumor scar. A total of 47 (18.6%) specimens were classified as ypT0 (four had invaded lymph nodes [8.5%]). The primary end point (ypT0N0) was not different (7 weeks: 20 of 133, 15.0% v 11w: 23 of 132, 17.4%; P = .5983). Morbidity was significantly increased in the 11w group (44.5% v 32%; P = .0404) as a result of increased medical complications (32.8% v 19.2%; P = .0137). The 11w group had a worse quality of mesorectal resection (complete mesorectum [I] 78.7% v 90%; P = .0156). Conclusion Waiting 11 weeks after RCT did not increase the rate of pCR after surgical resection. A longer waiting period may be associated with higher morbidity and more difficult surgical resection.