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

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.

Long-Term Functional Outcome After Early vs. Late Stoma Closure in Rectal Cancer Surgery: Sub-analysis of the Multicenter FORCE Trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of early stoma closure on bowel function after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients participating in the FORCE trial who underwent LAR with protective stoma were included in this study. Patients were subdivided into an early closure group (< 3 months) and late closure group (> 3 months). Endpoints of this study were the Wexner Incontinence, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), EORTC QLQ-CR29, and fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQL) scores at 1 year.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2020, 38 patients had received a diverting stoma after LAR for rectal cancer and could be included. There was no significant difference in LARS (31 vs. 30, p = 0.63) and Wexner score (6.2 vs. 5.8, p = 0.77) between the early and late closure groups. Time to stoma closure in days was not a predictor for LARS (R2 = 0.001, F (1,36) = 0.049, p = 0.83) or Wexner score (R2 = 0.008, F (1,36) = 0.287, p = 0.60) after restored continuity. There was no significant difference between any of the FIQL domains of lifestyle, coping, depression, and embarrassment. In the EORTC QLQ-29, body image scored higher in the late closure group (21.3 vs. 1.6, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Timing of stoma closure does not appear to affect long-term bowel function and quality of life, except for body image. To improve functional outcome, attention should be focused on other contributing factors.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy significantly improved patients' overall survival when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: A cohort study

Background

Programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors displayed considerable advantages in neoadjuvant therapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the specific application of neoadjuvant immunotherapy has not been well determined, and the long-term prognostic data of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy combined with surgical resection of NSCLC remains limited. In this study, we intended to assess the efficacy of the neoadjuvant therapy of the PD-1 inhibitor and long-term prognosis in patients with resectable NSCLC.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed NSCLC surgical patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy in our hospital, and divided them into a neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and a neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy group. The propensity score matching method was used to evaluate the effectiveness of immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of resectable lung cancer, and the long-term prognosis of these two groups was compared.

Results

A total of 62 cases were enrolled, including 20 patients (20/62, 32.26%) in the immunotherapy group and 42 patients (42/62, 67.74%) in the chemotherapy group. The clinical baseline data of these two groups were balanced. In the immunotherapy group, all patients had tumor regression in imaging finding (tumor regression ratio: 11.88% - 75.00%). In the chemotherapy group, 30 patients had tumor regression (tumor regression ratio: 2.70% - 58.97%). The R0 removal rates of cancers were comparable between the immunotherapy group and chemotherapy group (19/20, 95.00% vs. 39/42, 92.86%, P=1.000). The two groups were balanced in complete minimally invasive surgery, pneumonectomy, operative duration, blood loss, postoperative complications, and hospital stay. The immunotherapy group had more sleeve resection (36.84% vs. 10.26%, p=0.039) including bronchial sleeve and vascular sleeve, higher pathological complete response (pCR) rate (57.89% vs. 5.13%, P<0.001) and major pathologic response (MPR) rate (78.95% vs. 10.26%, P<0.001). There were no differences in survival curves for: smoker and non-smoker, squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma, or right lung cancer and left lung cancer. Moreover, patients who achieved MPR (including pCR) had significantly better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Patients in immunotherapy group had significantly better OS and longer DFS than those in chemotherapy group.

Conclusions

In conclusion, neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy can provide better OS and DFS and improving pCR and MPR rates by shrinking tumors.This study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number ChiCTR2200060433. http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=170157&htm=4.

Adoption of Organ Preservation and Surgeon Variability for Patients with Rectal Cancer Does Not Correlate with Worse Survival

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Watch-and-wait is variably adopted by surgeons and the impact of this on outcomes is unknown. We compared the disease-free survival and organ preservation rates of locally advanced rectal cancer patients treated by expert colorectal surgeons at a comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS

This study included retrospective data on patients diagnosed with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2013 to June 2017 who initiated neoadjuvant therapy (either with chemoradiation, chemotherapy, or a combination of both) and were treated by an expert colorectal surgeon.

RESULTS

Overall, 444 locally advanced rectal cancer patients managed by five surgeons were included. Tumor distance from the anal verge, type of neoadjuvant therapy, and organ preservation rates varied by treating surgeon. There was no difference in disease-free survival after stratifying by the treating surgeon (p = 0.2). On multivariable analysis, neither the type of neoadjuvant therapy nor the treating surgeon was associated with disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

While neoadjuvant therapy type and organ preservation rates varied among surgeons, there were no meaningful differences in disease-free survival. These data suggest that among expert colorectal surgeons, differing thresholds for selecting patients for watch-and-wait do not affect survival.