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

Nonoperative management and local excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer

Locally advanced extraperitoneal rectal cancer represents a significant clinical challenge, and currently, the standard treatment is based on neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) followed by radical surgical resection with total mesorectal excision (TME). In the last 30 years, its management has undergone significant changes due to the improvement of complementary radio- and chemotherapy treatments, the improvement of minimally invasive surgical approaches and the diffusion of organ-sparing approaches, such as nonoperative management, commonly called "watch and wait" (NOM) and local excision (LE), in highly selected patients who achieve a major or complete response to neoadjuvant CRT. This review aimed to critically examine the efficacy and oncological safety of NOM and LE compared to those of standard TME in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant CRT. Both the pros and cons of these approaches were strictly analyzed, providing a comprehensive and critical overview of these novel management strategies for rectal cancer.

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.

Surveillance after Total Neoadjuvant Therapy: What to do for Near-Complete Responders

A proportion of patients who undergo total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer will achieve what is classified as a near-complete response. Significant debate exists as to the optimal management strategy for these patients with large heterogeneity in management. This article will examine the therapeutic and surveillance options for these patients as well as the relevant outcomes data.

Neoadjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer: comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy has an established role in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. However, its role continues to evolve due to both advances in the available treatment modalities, and refinements in the indications for neoadjuvant treatment and subsequent surgery.

METHODS

A narrative review of the most recent relevant literature was conducted.

RESULTS

Short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy have an established role in improving local but not systemic disease control in patients with rectal cancer. Total neoadjuvant therapy offers advantages over short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy, not only in terms of increased local response but also in reducing the risk of systemic relapses. Non-operative management is increasingly preferred to surgery in patients with rectal cancer and clinical complete responses but is still associated with some negative impacts on functional outcomes. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be of some benefit in patients with locally advanced colon cancer with proficient mismatch repair, although patient selection is a major challenge. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with deficient mismatch repair cancers in the colon or rectum is altering the treatment paradigm for these patients.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant treatments for patients with colon or rectal cancers continue to evolve, increasing the complexity of decision-making for patients and clinicians alike. This review describes the current guidance and most recent developments.

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 ).

Sense and non-sense of imaging in the era of organ preservation for rectal cancer

This review summarizes the current applications and benefits of imaging modalities for organ preservation in the treatment of rectal cancer. The concept of organ preservation in the treatment of rectal cancer has revolutionized the way rectal cancer is managed. Initially, organ preservation was limited to patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who needed neoadjuvant therapy to reduce tumor size before surgery and achieved complete response. However, neoadjuvant therapy is now increasingly utilized for smaller and less aggressive tumors to achieve primary organ preservation. Additionally, more intensive neoadjuvant strategies are employed to improve complete response rates and increase the chances of successful organ preservation. The selection of patients for organ preservation is a critical component of treatment, and imaging techniques such as digital rectal exam, endoscopy, and MRI are commonly used for this purpose. In this review, we provide an overview of what imaging modalities should be chosen and how they can aid in the selection and follow-up of patients undergoing organ-preserving strategies.

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.

Local tumor regrowth after clinical complete response following neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: what happens when organ preservation falls short

Organ preservation strategies, especially watch and wait, after neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer, have become topics that generate significant interest, for both patients and clinicians. The obvious advantage of these strategies is the avoidance of surgery with its associated risks and functional consequences. Over time, it has become evident that these strategies offer acceptable safety in oncological terms and, in most patients, allows preservation of the rectum without harming patients in terms of distant metastasis or survival. However, there is a small group of patients in whom the tumor returns after an initially diagnosed clinical complete response; patients with local tumor regrowth. The main threat in these patients is not simply local disease, which can be successfully managed in most cases, but the possible effects it may have on distant metastases. The pathophysiology of the phenomenon of local tumor regrowth is not well known and, therefore, strategies to minimize possible impact on survival are not well defined. Our aim is to review key issues in this subgroup that pose a substantial threat to the safety and viability of organ-preserving and watch-and-wait strategies. We also explore possible pathophysiologic explanations and future directions and perspectives that may improve both local and systemic disease control.

The watch-and-wait strategy versus radical resection for rectal cancer patients with a good response (≤ycT2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Purpose

This study aims to oncologic outcomes of the watch-and-wait (WW) strategy compared with radical resection (RR).

Methods

Patients with rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and achieved ≤ycT2 between 2008 and 2016 were included. The mean follow-up time was 61 months (range, 0-168 months). Recurrence-free survival (RFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared. A total of 446 patients were included, and WW was adopted for 34 patients.

Results

WW patients were older (P = 0.022) and less advanced initial cT stage (P = 0.004). Ten patients in the WW group (29.4%) experienced local regrowth. Later, distant metastases occurred in 7 of these patients. The 5-year RFS (74.1% vs. 79.5%), DMFS (74.1% vs. 81.6%), and OS (90.4% vs. 87.7%) for the WW and RR groups were not statistically different. However, LRFS in the WW group was significantly lower (65.1% vs. 97.0%, P < 0.001). The initial cT stage was associated with RFS (P = 0.019) and LRFS (P = 0.037). WW was an independent risk factor for LRFS (P < 0.001) and DMFS (P = 0.024). After 1:4 propensity score matching between the WW and RR groups, there was no difference in RFS and OS. However, the 5-year LRFS (67.5% vs. 96.5%) and DMFS (73.2% vs. 86.4%) demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the groups.

Conclusion

By appointing the WW strategy, oncologic safety was not ensured. The WW strategy must be implemented with caution in patients with ≤ycT2 stage, particularly those with advanced initial cT stage.

Chemoradiation and consolidation chemotherapy for rectal cancer provides a high rate of organ preservation with a very good long-term oncological outcome: a single-center cohort series

Aim

To report long-term oncological outcomes and organ preservation rate with a chemoradiotherapy-consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).

Method

Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. Oncological outcomes of mid-low LARC patients (n=60) were analyzed after a follow-up of 63 (50–83) months. Patients with clinical complete response (cCR) were treated with the watch-and-wait (WW) protocol. Patients who could not achieve cCR were treated with total mesorectal excision (TME) or local excision (LE).

Results

Thirty-nine (65%) patients who achieved cCR were treated with the WW protocol. TME was performed in 15 (25%) patients and LE was performed in 6 (10%) patients. During the follow-up period, 10 (25.6%) patients in the WW group had regrowth (RG) and 3 (7.7%) had distant metastasis (DM). Five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 90.1% and 71.6%, respectively, in the WW group. Five-year OS and DFS were 94.9% (95% CI: 88–100%) and 80% (95% CI: 55.2–100%), respectively, in the RG group. For all patients (n=60), 5-year TME-free DFS was 57.3% (95% CI: 44.3–70.2%) and organ preservation-adapted DFS was 77.5% (95% CI: 66.4–88.4%). For the WW group (n=39), 5-year TME-free DFS was 77.5% (95% CI: 63.2–91.8%) and organ preservation-adapted DFS was 85.0% (95% CI: 72.3–97.8%).

Conclusion

CRT-CNCT provides cCR as high as 2/3 of LARC patients. Regrowths, developed during follow-up, can be successfully salvaged without causing oncological disadvantage if strict surveillance is performed.

Current trends in nonoperative management for rectal adenocarcinoma: An unequal playing field?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Increasing evidence suggests patient-oriented benefits of nonoperative management (NOM) for rectal cancer. However, vigilant surveillance requires excellent access to care. We sought to examine patient, socioeconomic, and facility-level factors associated with NOM over time.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (2006-2017), we examined patients with Stage II-III rectal adenocarcinoma, who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and received NOM versus surgery. Factors associated with NOM were assessed using multivariable logistic regression with backward stepwise selection.

RESULTS

There were 59,196 surgical and 8520 NOM patients identified. NOM use increased from 12.9% to 15.9% between 2006 and 2017. Patients who were Black (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-1.47), treated at community cancer centers (aOR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.12-1.30), without insurance (aOR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.68-2.09), and with less education (aOR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.42-1.65) exhibited higher odds of NOM. Patients treated at high-volume centers (aOR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.74-0.84) and those who traveled >25.6 miles for care (aOR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.55-0.64) had lower odds of NOM.

CONCLUSIONS

Vulnerable groups who traditionally have difficulty accessing comprehensive cancer care were more likely to receive NOM, suggesting that healthcare disparities may be driving utilization. More research is needed to understand NOM decision-making in rectal cancer treatment.

Role of Local Excision for Suspected Regrowth in a Watch and Wait Strategy for Rectal Cancer

Rectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant (chemo)radiation are eligible for Watch and Wait (W&W). For local regrowth, total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered the standard of care. This study evaluated local excision (LE) for suspected local regrowth. From 591 patients prospectively entered into a national W&W registry, 77 patients with LE for regrowth were included. Outcomes analyzed included histopathologic findings, locoregional recurrence, long-term organ preservation, and colostomy-free and overall survival. In total, 27/77 patients underwent early LE (<6 months after neoadjuvant radiotherapy) and 50/77 underwent late LE (≥6 months). Median follow-up was 53 (39−69) months. In 28/77 patients the LE specimen was histopathologically classified as ypT0 (including 9 adenomas); 11/77 were ypT1, and 38/77 were ypT2−3. After LE, 13/77 patients with ypT2−3 and/or irradical resection underwent completion TME. Subsequently, 14/64 patients without completion TME developed locoregional recurrence, and were successfully treated with salvage TME. Another 8/77 patients developed distant metastases. At 5 years, overall organ preservation was 63%, colostomy-free survival was 68%, and overall survival was 96%. There were no differences in outcomes between early or late LE. In W&W for rectal cancer, LE can be considered as an alternative to TME for suspected regrowth in selected patients who wish to preserve their rectum or avoid colostomy in distal rectal cancer.

The Multimodal Management of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Making Sense of the New Data

In the past 40 years, the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer has evolved with the addition of radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy and providing (neo)adjuvant systemic chemotherapy to major surgery. However, recent trends have focused on improving our ability to risk-stratify patients and tailoring treatment to achieve the best oncologic outcome while limiting the impact on long-term quality of life. Therefore, there has been increasing interest in pursuing a watch-and-wait approach to achieve organ preservation. Several retro- and prospective studies suggest safety of the watch-and-wait approach, though it is still considered controversial due to limited clinical evidence, concerns about tumor regrowth, and subsequent distant progression. To further reduce treatment, MRI risk stratification, together with patient characteristics and patient preferences, can guide personalized treatment and reserve radiation and chemotherapy for a select patient population. Ultimately, improved options for reassessment during neoadjuvant treatment may allow for more adaptive therapy options based on treatment response. This article provides an overview of some major developments in the multimodal treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. It reviews some relevant, controversial issues of the watch-and-wait approach and opportunities to personally tailor and reduce treatment. It also reviews the overall neoadjuvant treatment, including total neoadjuvant therapy trials, and how to best optimize for a potential complete response. Finally, it provides an algorithm as an example of how such a personalized, tailored, adaptive, and reduced treatment could look like in the future.

Outcomes of Patients With Local Regrowth After Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Clinical complete responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer are increasingly being managed by a watch-and-wait strategy. Nonetheless, a significant proportion will experience a local regrowth, and the long-term oncological outcomes of these patients is not totally known.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patients who submitted to a watch-and-wait strategy and developed a local regrowth, and to compare these results with sustained complete clinical responders.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTING

Single institution, tertiary cancer center involved in alternatives to organ preservation.

PATIENTS

Patients with a biopsy-proven rectal adenocarcinoma (stage II/III or low lying cT2N0M0 at risk for an abdominoperineal resection) treated with chemoradiation who were found at restage to have a clinical complete response.

INTERVENTIONS

Rectal cancer patients treated with chemoradiation who underwent a watch-and-wait strategy (without a full thickness local excision) and developed a local regrowth were compared to the remaining patients of the watch-and-wait strategy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall survival between groups, incidence of regrowth' and results of salvage surgery.

RESULTS

There were 67 patients. Local regrowth occurred in 20 (29.9%) patients treated with a watch-and-wait strategy. Mean follow-up was 62.7 months. Regrowth occurred at mean 14.2 months after chemoradiation, half of them within the first 12 months. Patients presented with comparable initial staging, lateral pelvic lymph-node metastasis, and extramural venous invasion. The regrowth group had a statistically nonsignificant higher incidence of mesorectal fascia involvement (35.0% vs 13.3%, p = 0.089). All regrowths underwent salvage surgery, mostly (75%) a sphincter-sparing procedure. 5-year overall survival was 71.1% in patients with regrowth and 91.1% in patients with a sustained complete clinical response (p = 0.027).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective evaluation of patient selection for a watch-and-wait strategy and outcomes, as well as its small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Local regrowth is a frequent event when following a watch-and-wait policy (29.9%); however, patients could undergo salvage surgical treatment with adequate pelvic control. In this series, overall survival showed a statistically significant difference from patients managed with a watch-and-wait strategy who experienced a local regrowth compared to those who did not. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B773.RESULTADOS DE LOS PACIENTES CON REBROTE LOCAL, DESPUÉS DEL MANEJO NO QUIRÚRGICO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO, DESPUÉS DE LA QUIMIORRADIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTEANTECEDENTES:Los respondedores clínicos completos, después de la quimiorradiación para el cáncer de recto, se tratan cada vez más mediante una estrategia de observación y espera. No obstante, una proporción significativa experimentará un rebrote local y los resultados oncológicos a largo plazo de estos pacientes, no se conocen por completo.OBJETIVO:El propósito de este estudio, fue analizar los resultados de los pacientes sometidos a una estrategia de observación y espera, que desarrollaron un rebrote local, y comparar estos resultados con respondedores clínicos completos sostenidos.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO.Institución única, centro oncológico terciario involucrado en alternativas a la preservación de órganos.PACIENTES:Pacientes con un adenocarcinoma de recto comprobado por biopsia (estadio II / III o posición baja cT2N0M0, en riesgo de resección abdominoperineal), tratados con quimiorradiación, y que durante un reestadiaje, presentaron una respuesta clínica completa.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes con cáncer de recto tratados con quimiorradiación, sometidos a una estrategia de observación y espera (sin una escisión local de espesor total) y que desarrollaron un rebrote local, se compararon con los pacientes restantes de la estrategia de observación y espera.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Supervivencia global entre los grupos, incidencia de rebrote y resultados de la cirugía de rescate.RESULTADOS:Fueron 67 pacientes. El rebrote local ocurrió en 20 (29,9%) pacientes tratados con una estrategia de observación y espera. El seguimiento medio fue de 62,7 meses. El rebrote se produjo a la media de 14,2 meses después de la quimiorradiación, la mitad de ellos dentro de los primeros 12 meses. Los pacientes se presentaron con una estadificación inicial comparable, metástasis en los ganglios linfáticos pélvicos laterales e invasión venosa extramural. El grupo de rebrote tuvo una mayor incidencia estadísticamente no significativa de afectación de la fascia mesorrectal (35,0 vs 13,3%, p = 0,089). Todos los rebrotes se sometieron a cirugía de rescate, en su mayoría (75%) con procedimiento de preservación del esfínter. La supervivencia global a 5 años fue del 71,1% en pacientes con rebrote y del 91,1% en pacientes con una respuesta clínica completa sostenida (p = 0,027).LIMITACIONES:Evaluación retrospectiva de la selección de pacientes para una estrategia y resultados de observar y esperar, tamaño de muestra pequeño.CONCLUSIONES:El rebrote local es un evento frecuente después de la política de observación y espera (29,9%), sin embargo los pacientes podrían someterse a un tratamiento quirúrgico de rescate con un adecuado control pélvico. En esta serie, la supervivencia global mostró una diferencia estadísticamente significativa de los pacientes manejados con una estrategia de observación y espera que experimentaron un rebrote local, en comparación con los que no lo hicieron. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B773. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Interpretable machine learning for predicting pathologic complete response in patients treated with chemoradiation therapy for rectal adenocarcinoma

Purpose

Pathologic complete response (pCR) is a critical factor in determining whether patients with rectal cancer (RC) should have surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Currently, a pathologist's histological analysis of surgical specimens is necessary for a reliable assessment of pCR. Machine learning (ML) algorithms have the potential to be a non-invasive way for identifying appropriate candidates for non-operative therapy. However, these ML models' interpretability remains challenging. We propose using explainable boosting machine (EBM) to predict the pCR of RC patients following nCRT.

Methods

A total of 296 features were extracted, including clinical parameters (CPs), dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters from gross tumor volume (GTV) and organs-at-risk, and radiomics (R) and dosiomics (D) features from GTV. R and D features were subcategorized into shape (S), first-order (L1), second-order (L2), and higher-order (L3) local texture features. Multi-view analysis was employed to determine the best set of input feature categories. Boruta was used to select all-relevant features for each input dataset. ML models were trained on 180 cases from our institution, with 37 cases from RTOG 0822 clinical trial serving as the independent dataset for model validation. The performance of EBM in predicting pCR on the test dataset was evaluated using ROC AUC and compared with that of three state-of-the-art black-box models: extreme gradient boosting (XGB), random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM). The predictions of all black-box models were interpreted using Shapley additive explanations.

Results

The best input feature categories were CP+DVH+S+R_L1+R_L2 for all models, from which Boruta-selected features enabled the EBM, XGB, RF, and SVM models to attain the AUCs of 0.820, 0.828, 0.828, and 0.774, respectively. Although EBM did not achieve the best performance, it provided the best capability for identifying critical turning points in response scores at distinct feature values, revealing that the bladder with maximum dose >50 Gy, and the tumor with maximum2DDiameterColumn >80 mm, elongation <0.55, leastAxisLength >50 mm and lower variance of CT intensities were associated with unfavorable outcomes.

Conclusions

EBM has the potential to enhance the physician's ability to evaluate an ML-based prediction of pCR and has implications for selecting patients for a "watchful waiting" strategy to RC therapy.

Rectal cancer: Watch-and-wait and continuing the rectal-preserving strategy with local excision for incomplete response or limited regrowth

BACKGROUND

Deferral of conventional surgery for rectal cancer after neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy is gaining increasing interest, particularly for patients who are too frail to undergo major surgery but also those who wish to avoid the adverse effects of major surgery. We elected to undertake a pragmatic approach to include all comers in a cohort with the aim of reflecting the clinical outcomes for patients on a deferral from conventional rectal surgery pathway, treated with neo-adjuvant chemo-radiation (CRT) with or without selective local excision (LE) offered to those who failed to demonstrate a complete clinical response (cCR).

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients treated with neo-adjuvant CRT were stratified to a group of complete responders to CRT on a "watch and wait" (WW) pathway and a group who were treated with an additional local excision for persistent tumour.

RESULTS

Regrowth was noted in 26% (11/42) in the WW group after 2 years surveillance, disease free survival was 94.5% (80-99%) at 1 year and 74.9% (44-76.4%) at 3 years. Recurrence was noted in 45% (10/22) in the CRT + LE group, disease free survival at 1 and 3 years was 74% (53.4-88.1) and 66.2% (45.6-82.4) respectively.

CONCLUSION

A WW strategy for cCR is a viable pathway in the non-operative management of rectal cancer. We found the use of CRT + LE is a useful option for those who hope to avoid surgery but caution should be exercised due to substantially higher risk of recurrence.

Delayed Surgery after Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer Does Not Lead to Impaired Quality of Life, Worry for Cancer, or Regret

Simple Summary

Rectal cancer patients with an initial (near) complete clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy can be repeatedly assessed to see if a complete response endures. Up to 75% of these patients are able to avoid surgery and its related complications. However, the remaining 25% who ‘fail’ will eventually have to undergo surgery. Although recent studies have shown that patients undergoing delayed surgery have promising surgical and oncological outcomes, it is not known how these patients fare in terms of quality of life. The aim of this study was to compare quality of life between these immediate and delayed surgery groups through validated questionnaires. Our study including 51 patients shows no difference in quality of life, worry for cancer, or decision regret. Therefore, from a quality of life perspective, this study supports a repeated response assessment strategy after chemoradiotherapy for rectal carcinoma to identify all complete responders.

Abstract

Non operative management of complete clinical responders after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer enjoys an increasing popularity because of the increased functional outcome results. Even a near complete response can evolve in a cCR, and therefore further delaying response assessment is accepted. However, up to 40% of patients will develop a regrowth and will eventually require delayed surgery. It is presently unknown if and to what extent quality of life of these patients is affected, compared to patients who undergo immediate surgery. Between January 2015-May 2020, 200 patients were treated with neoadjuvant therapy of whom 94 received TME surgery. Fifty-one (59%) of 87 alive patients returned the questionnaires: 33 patients who underwent immediate and 18 patients who underwent delayed surgery. Quality of life was measured through the QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29, and Cancer Worry Scale questionnaires. Regret to participate in repeated response assessment protocol was assessed through the Decision Regret Scale. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a ‘known groups comparison’ was performed to assess QLQ questionnaires validity in this sample. Higher mean physical function scores (89.2 vs. 77.6, p = 0.03) were observed in the immediate surgery group, which lost significance after correction for operation type (p = 0.25). Arousal for men was higher in the delayed surgery group (20.0 vs. 57.1, p = 0.02). There were no differences between surgical groups for the other questionnaire items. Worry for cancer was lower in the delayed surgery group (10.8 vs. 14.0, p = 0.21). Regret was very low (12–16%). EFA reproduced most QLQ C-30 and CR29 subscales with good internal consistency. Quality of life is not impaired in patients undergoing delayed TME surgery after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. Moreover, there is very low regret and no increase in worry for cancer. Therefore, from a quality of life perspective, this study supports a repeated response assessment strategy after CRTx for rectal carcinoma to identify all complete responders.