Oncologic comparison between nonradical management and total mesorectal excision in good responders after chemoradiotherapy in patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Comparison of tumor regression grade and clinical stage based on MRI image as a selection criterion for non-radical management after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

There has been no comparative study on the clinical value of magnetic resonance tumor regression grade (mrTRG)1-2 and ycT0-1N0 for the prediction of ypT0-1N0 after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for rectal cancer. We compared the diagnostic performance between mrTRG1-2 and ycT0-1N0 for predicting ypT0-1N0 as a selection criterion for non-radical management after CCRT in locally advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 291 patients from three referral hospitals between January 2018 and March 2020. The diagnostic performance of ycT0-1N0 and mrTRG1-2 for the prediction of ypT0-1N0 was compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, negative-predictive value, and area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients (23.4%) achieved ypT0-1N0. Nineteen patients (6.5%) had ycT0-1N0, and 91 patients (31.2%) had mrTRG1-2. For predicting ypT0-1N0, ycT0-1N0 had a sensitivity of 16.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.36‒27.10) and positive-predictive value of 57.9% (95% CI: 36.57‒76.63), while mrTRG1-2 had a sensitivity of 58.8% (95% CI: 46.23‒70.63) and positive-predictive value of 44.0% (95% CI: 36.46‒51.74). When predicting ypT0-1N0, mrTRG1-2 showed a higher AUC (0.680, 95% CI: 0.604‒0.756) than ycT0-1N0 (0.563, 95% CI: 0.481‒0.645) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

mrTRG1-2 might be a better indicator than ycT0-1N0 for the selection of non-radical management of advanced rectal cancer post-CCRT. However, additional diagnostic tools are required for predicting ypT0-1N0 because mrTRG1-2 or yc stage on MRI has insufficient evidence for diagnosing ypT0-1N0.