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

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society on Appropriate Use Criteria for Nonoperative Management of Rectal Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Guidelines

For patients with rectal cancer, the standard approach of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery (trimodality therapy) is associated with significant long-term toxicity and/or colostomy for most patients. Patient options focused on quality of life (QOL) have dramatically improved, but there remains limited guidance regarding comparative effectiveness. This systematic review and associated guidelines evaluate how various treatment strategies compare to each other in terms of oncologic outcomes and QOL. Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology were used to search for prospective and retrospective trials and meta-analyses of adequate quality within the Ovid Medline database between January 1, 2012, and June 15, 2023. These studies informed the expert panel, which rated the appropriateness of various treatments in 6 clinical scenarios through a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi). The search process yielded 197 articles that advised voting. Increasing data have shown that nonoperative management (NOM) and primary surgery result in QOL benefits noted over trimodality therapy without detriment to oncologic outcomes. For patients with rectal cancer for whom total mesorectal excision would result in permanent colostomy or inadequate bowel continence, NOM was strongly recommended as usually appropriate. Restaging with tumor response assessment approximately 8 to 12 weeks after completion of radiation therapy/chemoradiation therapy was deemed a necessary component of NOM. The panel recommended active surveillance in the setting of a near-complete or complete response. In the setting of NOM, 54 to 56 Gy in 27 to 31 fractions concurrent with chemotherapy and followed by consolidation chemotherapy was recommended. The panel strongly recommends primary surgery as usually appropriate for a T3N0 high rectal tumor for which low anterior resection and adequate bowel function is possible, with adjuvant chemotherapy considered if N+. Recent data support NOM and primary surgery as important options that should be offered to eligible patients. Considering the complexity of multidisciplinary management, patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting, and therapy should be tailored to individual patient goals/values.

Shear-wave elastography predicts T-restaging and pathologic complete response of rectal cancer post neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the value of shear-wave elastography (SWE) in assessing the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

In this study, 455 participants with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent nCRT at our hospital between September 2021 and December 2022 were prospectively enrolled. The participants were randomly divided into training and test cohorts in a 3:2 ratio. Clinical baseline data, endorectal ultrasound examination data, and SWE measurements were collected for all participants. Logistic regression models were used to predict whether rectal cancer after nCRT had a low T staging (ypT 0-2 stage, Model A) and pathological complete response (pCR) (Model B). Paired Chi-square tests were used to compare the diagnostic performances of the radiologists to those of Models A and B.

RESULTS

In total, 256 participants were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of Models A and B in the test cohort were 0.94 (0.87, 1.00) and 0.88 (0.80, 0.97), respectively. The optimal diagnostic thresholds for Models A and B were 14.9 kPa for peritumoral mesangial Emean and 15.2 kPa for tumor Emean, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the radiologists was significantly lower than that of Models A and B, respectively (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SWE can be used as a feasible method to evaluate the treatment response of nCRT for locally advanced rectal cancer.

Can rectal MRI and endorectal ultrasound accurately predict the complete response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy for rectal cancer?

Background

Standardized assessments of clinical complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for rectal cancer have been established, but their utility and accuracy remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical diagnostic value of rectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endorectal ultrasonography (ERUS) for the determination of cCRs after neoadjuvant immunotherapy and to investigate the concordance between cCR and pathological complete response (pCR).

Methods

Ninety-four patients with rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy with or without immunotherapy were included. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each evaluation method were calculated.

Results

Combined MRI and ERUS assessments found cCR in seven of the 94 patients in our cohort. In the non-immunotherapy group, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MRI for diagnosing cCR were 50.0%, 85.2%, and 77.1%, respectively, whereas those of ERUS were 50.0%, 92.6%, and 82.9%, respectively; those of combined MRI and ERUS were 25.0%, 96.3%, and 87.5%, respectively. In the immunotherapy group, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy with which MRI identified CR were 51.7%, 76.7%, and 64.4%, respectively; those of ERUS were 13.8%, 90.0%, and 52.5%, respectively, and those of combined MRI and ERUS were 10.3%, 96.7%, and 54.2%, respectively. We also found that 32 of 37 patients with pCR did not meet the cCR evaluation criteria. Of these pCR patients, 78.4% (29/37) received immunotherapy. In the entire cohort, there were five pCRs among the seven cCRs. Of the four cCRs that occurred in the immunotherapy group, three were pCRs.

Conclusions

Rectal MRI and/or ERUS did not provide sufficiently accurate assessments of cCR in patients with rectal cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy, especially immunotherapy, and cCR did not predict pCR.

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

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

The Predictors of Complete Pathologic Response in Rectal Cancer during the Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Era: A Systematic Review

The modern rectal cancer treatment paradigm offers additional opportunities for organ preservation, most notably via total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and consideration for a watch-and-wait (WW) surveillance-only approach. A major barrier to widespread implementation of a WW approach to rectal cancer is the potential discordance between a clinical complete response (cCR) and a pathologic complete response (pCR). In the pre-TNT era, the identification of predictors of pCR after neoadjuvant therapy had been previously studied. However, the last meta-analysis to assess the summative evidence on this important treatment decision point predates the acceptance and dissemination of TNT strategies. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess preoperative predictors of pCR after TNT to guide the ideal selection criteria for WW in the current era. An exhaustive literature review was performed and the electronic databases Embase, Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane were comprehensively searched up to 27 June 2023. Search terms and their combinations included "rectal neoplasms", "total neoadjuvant therapy", and "pathologic complete response". Only studies in English were included. Randomized clinical trials or prospective/retrospective cohort studies of patients with clinical stage 2 or 3 rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent at least 8 weeks of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in addition to chemoradiotherapy with pCR as a measured study outcome were included. In this systematic review, nine studies were reviewed for characteristics positively or negatively associated with pCR or tumor response after TNT. The results were qualitatively grouped into four categories: (1) biochemical factors; (2) clinical factors; (3) patient demographics; and (4) treatment sequence for TNT. The heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. The level of evidence was low to very low. There is minimal data to support any clinicopathologic factors that either have a negative or positive relationship to pCR and tumor response after TNT. Additional data from long-term trials using TNT is critical to better inform those considering WW approaches following a cCR.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Preoperative Radiotherapy Decision-Tree for Rectal Cancer Patients: A Real-World Analysis Based on the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry

BACKGROUND

There are 3 widely used preoperative radiotherapy (RT) procedures in rectal cancer treatment including long-course RT (LRT), short-course RT with delayed surgery (SRTW), and short-course RT with immediate surgery (SRT). However, further evidence is required to determine which treatment option results in more optimal patient survival.

METHODS

This Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry-based retrospective study of real-world data included 7766 stage I-III rectal cancer patients, of which 2982, 1089, 763, and 2932 patients received no RT (NRT), LRT, SRTW, and SRT, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve and Cox proportional hazard multivariate model were used to identify potential risk factors and to examine the independent association of RT with patient survival after adjusting for baseline confounding factors.

RESULTS

RT effects on survival differed by age and clinical T stage (cT) subgroups. Subsequent survival analysis by age and cT subgroups confirmed that patients ≥70 years old with cT4 benefited from any RT (P < .001, NRT as reference) and equally from any RT (P > .05 pairwise between RTs). In contrast, for cT3 patients ≥70 years, SRT and LRT were associated with better survival than SRTW (P < .001). In patients <70 years, LRT and SRTW had superior survival benefits in cT4 patients but inferior to SRT (P < .001); SRT was the only effective treatment in the cT3N+ subgroup (P = .032); patients with cT3N0 and <70 years did not benefit from any RT.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that preoperative RT strategies may have varying effects on the survival of rectal cancer patients, depending on their age and clinical stage.

Exploring novel genetic and hematological predictors of response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer

Introduction: The standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). To select patients who would benefit the most from nCRT, there is a need for predictive biomarkers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of clinical, pathological, radiological, inflammation-related genetic, and hematological parameters in the prediction of post-nCRT response. Materials and methods: In silico analysis of published transcriptomics datasets was conducted to identify candidate genes, whose expression will be measured using quantitative Real Time PCR (qRT-PCR) in pretreatment formaline-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples. In this study, 75 patients with LARC were prospectively included between June 2020-January 2022. Patients were assessed for tumor response in week 8 post-nCRT with pelvic MRI scan and rigid proctoscopy. For patients with a clinical complete response (cCR) and initially distant located tumor no immediate surgery was suggested ("watch and wait" approach). The response after surgery was assessed using histopathological tumor regression grading (TRG) categories from postoperative specimens by Mandard. Responders (R) were defined as patients with cCR without operative treatment, and those with TRG 1 and TRG 2 postoperative categories. Non-responders (NR) were patients classified as TRG 3-5. Results: Responders group comprised 35 patients (46.6%) and NR group 53.4% of patients. Analysis of published transcriptomics data identified genes that could predict response to treatment and their significance was assessed in our cohort by qRT-PCR. When comparison was made in the subgroup of patients who were operated (TRG1 vs. TRG4), the expression of IDO1 was significantly deregulated (p < 0.05). Among hematological parameters between R and NR a significant difference in the response was detected for neutrophil-to-monocyte ratio (NMR), initial basophil, eosinophil and monocyte counts (p < 0.01). According to MRI findings, non-responders more often presented with extramural vascular invasion (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Based on logistic regression model, factors associated with favorable response to nCRT were tumor morphology and hematological parameters which can be easily and routinely derived from initial laboratory results (NMR, eosinophil, basophil and monocyte counts) in a minimally invasive manner. Using various metrics, an aggregated score of the initial eosinophil, basophil, and monocyte counts demonstrated the best predictive performance.

Patient and multidisciplinary team perspectives on watch and wait in rectal cancer

This article adopts a multidisciplinary approach, including surgery, oncology, radiology and patient perspectives, to discuss the key points of debate surrounding a watch and wait approach. In an era of shared decision-making, discussion of watch and wait as an option in the context of complete clinical response is appropriate, although it is not the gold standard treatment. Key challenges are the difficulty in assessing for a complete clinical response, prediction of recurrence and access to timely diagnostics for surveillance. Salvage surgery has good results if regrowth is detected early but does have imperfect outcomes, with only a 90% salvage rate. Good communication with patients about the risks and alternatives is essential. Patients undergoing watch and wait should ideally be enrolled in prospective registries or clinical trials.

MRI restaging of rectal cancer: The RAC (Response-Anal canal-CRM) analysis joint consensus guidelines of the GRERCAR and GRECCAR groups

PURPOSE

To develop guidelines by international experts to standardize data acquisition, image interpretation, and reporting in rectal cancer restaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Evidence-based data and experts' opinions were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts provided recommendations for reporting template and protocol for data acquisition were collected; responses were analysed and classified as "RECOMMENDED" versus "NOT RECOMMENDED" (if ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (if < 80% consensus among experts).

RESULTS

Consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI sequences, staging and reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. A consensus was reached for each reporting template item among the experts. Tailored MRI protocol and standardized report were proposed.

CONCLUSION

These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for rectal cancer restaging with MRI.

Response assessment of locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: Is apparent diffusion coefficient useful on 3 T magnetic resonance imaging?

AIM

To assess the diagnostic value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) on 3 T device for the prediction of tumoral response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and for the response assessment after nCRT in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), using pathology as a reference.

METHODS

Forty-one patients affected by LARC undergoing 3.0 T MRI before and after nCRT were retrospectively selected. After the conventional acquisition of high resolution T2-weighted sequences, diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) was performed using a spin-echo echo-planar sequence with multiple b values (150, 500, 1000, 1500 s/mm² ). Fitted ADC values were calculated for each rectal lesion before and after nCRT by drawing a hand-made region of interest (ROI) around the tumour outline. All patients underwent surgery and pathological staging (classified according to tumour regression grading [TRG] and to tumour and node [TN]) represented the reference standard. Pretreatment ADC value (pre-ADC), ADC value obtained after nCRT (post-ADC) and the difference between post-ADC and pre-ADC (ΔADC) were correlated with both the TRG classes and the TN staging system in each patient.

RESULTS

The ADC values obtained in the post nCRT examination and the ΔADC were statistically related both to TRG (p = 0.0004; p = 0.0126, respectively) and TN (p = 0.0484; p = 0.0673, respectively) stages at histopathology. On the contrary, the pre-ADC was not related either to the TRG classes or to the lesion TN staging system (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

3 T DW-MRI using ADC value can be useful to assess the efficacy of nCRT in LARC; in fact, post-ADC and ΔADC values improve MR capability to evaluate tumour response.

Endoscopy-Based Deep Convolutional Neural Network Predicts Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Background and Aims: Although the wait and watch (W&W) strategy is a treatment choice for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients who achieve clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy (NT), the issue on consistency between cCR and pathological CR (pCR) remains unsettled. Herein, we aimed to develop a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model using endoscopic images of LARC patients after NT to distinguish tumor regression grade (TRG) 0 from non-TRG0, thus providing strength in identifying surgery candidates. Methods: A total of 1000 LARC patients (6,939 endoscopic images) who underwent radical surgery after NT from April 2013 to April 2021 at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University were retrospectively included in our study. Patients were divided into three cohorts in chronological order: the training set for constructing the model, the validation set, and the independent test set for validating its predictive capability. Besides, we compared the model's performance with that of three endoscopists on a class-balanced, randomly selected subset of 20 patients' LARC images (10 TRG0 patients with 70 images and 10 non-TRG0 patients with 72 images). The measures used to evaluate the efficacy for identifying TRG0 included overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: There were 219 (21.9%) cases of TRG0 in the included patients. The constructed DCNN model in the training set obtained an excellent performance with good accuracy of 94.21%, specificity of 94.39%, NPV of 98.11%, and AUROC of 0.94. The validation set showed accuracy, specificity, NPV, and AUROC of 92.13%, 93.04%, 96.69%, and 0.95, respectively; the corresponding values in the independent set were 87.14%, 92.98%, 91.37%, and 0.77, respectively. In the reader study, the model outperformed the three experienced endoscopists with an AUROC of 0.85. Conclusions: The proposed DCNN model achieved high specificity and NPV in detecting TRG0 LARC tumors after NT, with a better performance than experienced endoscopists. As a supplement to radiological images, this model may serve as a useful tool for identifying surgery candidates in LARC patients after NT.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Trial registration

Protocol registration number: CRD42021244032.

Supplementary Information

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

Is the Management of Rectal Cancer Using a Watch and Wait Approach Feasible, Safe and Effective in a Publicly Funded General Hospital?

AIMS

Although there is emerging evidence to suggest equivalent oncological outcomes using a watch and wait approach compared with primary total mesorectal excision surgery, there is a paucity of evidence about the safety and efficacy of this approach in routine clinical practice. Here we report the long-term outcomes and quality of life from patients managed with watch and wait following a clinical complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum with cCR following neoadjuvant therapy managed using watch and wait were retrospectively identified. Demographic data, performance status, pretreatment staging information, oncological and surgical outcomes were obtained from routinely collected clinical data. Quality of life was measured by trained clinicians during telephone interviews.

RESULTS

Over a 7-year period, 506 patients were treated for rectal cancer, 276 had neoadjuvant therapy and 72 had a cCR (26.1%). Sixty-three were managed with watch and wait. Thirteen patients had mucosal regrowth. There was no significant difference in the incidence of metastatic disease between the surgical and watch and wait cohorts (P = 0.38). The 13 patients with mucosal regrowth underwent salvage surgery. Eleven of the patients who underwent surgical resection had R0 resections. There was also a statistically and clinically significant improvement in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Colorectal (FACT-C) trial outcome index (P = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that watch and wait is safe and effective outside of tertiary referral centres. It suggests that an opportunistic cCR is durable and when mucosal regrowth occurs it can be salvaged. Finally, we have shown that quality of life is probably improved if a watch and wait approach is adopted.

Re-staging and follow-up of rectal cancer patients with MR imaging when "Watch-and-Wait" is an option: a practical guide

In the past nearly 20 years, organ-sparing when no apparent viable tumour is present after neoadjuvant therapy has taken an increasingly relevant role in the therapeutic management of locally-advanced rectal cancer patients. The decision to include a patient or not in a “Watch-and-Wait” program relies mainly on endoscopic assessment by skilled surgeons, and MR imaging by experienced radiologists. Strict surveillance using the same modalities is required, given the chance of a local regrowth is of approximately 25–30%, almost always surgically salvageable if caught early. Local regrowths occur at the endoluminal aspect of the primary tumour bed in almost 90% of patients, but the rest are deep within it or outside the rectal wall, in which case detection relies solely on MR Imaging. In this educational review, we provide a practical guide for radiologists who are, or intend to be, involved in the re-staging and follow-up of rectal cancer patients in institutions with an established “Watch-and-Wait” program. First, we discuss patient preparation and MR imaging acquisition technique. Second, we focus on the re-staging MR imaging examination and review the imaging findings that allow us to assess response. Third, we focus on follow-up assessments of patients who defer surgery and confer about the early signs that may indicate a sustained/non-sustained complete response, a rectal/extra-rectal regrowth, and the particular prognosis of the “near-complete” responders. Finally, we discuss our proposed report template.

Early conformational changes at tumour bed and long term response after neoadjuvant therapy in locally-advanced rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how changes in tumour scar depth angle and thickness in the post-neoadjuvant period relate to long-term response in locally-advanced rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Informed consent was obtained from all patients and institutional review board approved this retrospective study. Sixty-nine consecutive locally-advanced rectal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and were selected for "Watch-and-Wait" were enrolled. Two radiologists, O1 and O2, blindly and independently reviewed the 1st and 2nd post-neoadjuvant therapy pelvic MRI T2-weighted images and recorded depth angle and thickness of the tumour scar. Value changes were calculated by simple subtraction (2nd-1st). Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess for significant differences between sustained clinical complete responders (SCR), defined as patients with pathologic complete response or clinical complete response with a minimum follow-up of 1 year; and non-sustained complete responders (non-SCR). Interobserver agreement was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data on mrTRG, DWI and endoscopy at 1st and 2nd timepoints were retrieved for comparison.

RESULTS

In SCR, depth angle change between 1st (med = 10 weeks after end of radiotherapy) and 2nd (med = 23 weeks after end of radiotherapy) timepoints was significantly different (O1:p = 0.004; O2:p = 0.010): the SCR group showed a depth angle reduction (O1:med=-4.45; O2:med=-2.35), whereas non-SCRs showed a depth angle increase (O1:med=+2.60; O2:med=+7.40). Also, at 2nd timepoint, SCR scars were significantly thinner both for O1 (p = 0.003; SCR:med = 7.05 mm; non-SCR:med = 9.4 mm) and O2 (p = 0.006; SCR:med = 6.45 mm; non-SCR:med = 8.2 mm). A depth angle increase >21^º between 1st and 2nd timepoints and a scar thickness >10 mm at 2nd timepoint were not sensitive but were highly specific for a non-SCR (91/94 %) for both observers. Interobserver agreement was good for scar depth angle change (ICC = 0.65) and excellent for scar thickness at 2nd timepoint (ICC = 0.84). Of the retrieved data, only DWI at 2nd timepoint was discriminative (p = 0.043) providing a similar sensitivity (33 %) and a slightly lower specificity (87.5 %).

CONCLUSION

Tumour scar expansion >21° between 1st and 2nd post-neoadjuvancy MRI and a scar thickness >10 mm at 2nd post-neoadjuvancy MRI may consistently indicate a non-SCR with high specificity in locally-advanced rectal cancer patients.

Watch-and-wait strategy in rectal cancer: Is there a tumour size limit? Results from two pooled prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Frequency and predictive factors for a clinical complete response (cCR) in unselected patients are unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two prospective observational studies were designed and pooled to explore predictive factors for cCR. Both studies evaluated the watch-and-wait strategy in consecutive patients; the first single-institutional study in elderly with a small tumour, the second multi-institutional study in all the patients receiving standard of care preoperative radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Four hundred and ninety patients were analysed. Short-course radiotherapy alone, or with consolidation chemotherapy or chemoradiation was given to 40.6%, 40.2% and 19.2% of the patients, respectively. The median interval from the radiation start to the first tumour response assessment was 10.2 weeks for short-course radiation and 13.2 weeks for chemoradiation. Seventy-three patients had cCR and 71 underwent w&w with the median follow-up of 24 months. The regrowth rate was 26.8%. cCR rate was 39.0% for low-risk cancer (cT1-2N0), 16.8% for intermediate-risk (cT3 with unthreatened mesorectal fascia [MRF-] or cT2N+) and 5.4% for high-risk (cT4 or MRF+). In the multivariable analysis, tumour volume (or tumour length and circumferential extent) and cN status were significant predictors for cCR. In circular cancers or with a length ≥7 cm (n = 184), cCR rate was only 2.7%, sustained cCR 1.6% and the sensitivity of cCR diagnosis 23.1%. None of 27 patients with a tumour larger than 120 cm³ achieved cCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering watch-and-wait strategy is questionable in patients with circular tumours or with tumour length ≥7 cm.

Could the conservative approach be considered safe in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer in case of a clinical near-complete or complete response? A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Conservative approach has emerged as an option for the management of rectal cancer (RC) patients with a near or complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). The aim of this study is to assess the impact of the conservative approach by comparing patients' survival outcomes and quality of life with those who had surgical resection.

METHODS

A single-institution and retrospective study including RC patients who reached a near complete or complete clinical response after nCRT from January 2010 to September 2019. Conservative approaches included local excision or watch and wait strategy; surgery approaches included anterior resection or abdominal-perineal resection.Local regrowth (LR), overall survival, disease free survival, metastasis free survival and colostomy free survival were evaluated through Kaplan-Meier curves and compared trough log-rank tests. Quality of life was measured by the following validated questionnaires: EORTC QLC30, EORTC QLQ - CR29 and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale.

RESULTS

Overall 157 patients were analyzed: 105 (66,9%) underwent radical surgery and 52 (33,1%) had a conservative approach. With a median follow-up of 51 months, 2 patients in the surgical group had a local recurrence and 8 in the conservative group had a LR, respectively. Distance metastasis occurred in 7 and 1 patients of surgical and conservative group, respectively. No differences were detected in terms of survival outcomes except for colostomy free survival (p: 0,01). The conservative group showed better intestinal (p < 0.01) and sexual (p: 0,04) function and emotional status (p: 0,02).

CONCLUSIONS

Conservative approach seems to be safe in terms of survival outcomes with a significant advantage on quality of life in RC patients who achieved clinical complete response after nCRT.