Watch-and-wait Management for Rectal Cancer After Clinical Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yuval JB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8803266 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Watch-and-wait Management for Rectal Cancer After Clinical Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy.
Yuval Jonathan B JB Garcia-Aguilar Julio J
Advances in surgery 20210706
Similar Datasets
Project description:There is increasing interest in nonoperative management (NOM) for rectal cancer with complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT).The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the available data on NOM, with the intention of formulating standardized protocols on which to base future investigations.A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. A highly sensitive literature search identified all relevant studies published between January 2004 and December 2016. Data extraction and quality assessment was performed independently by two authors, and resolved by consensus with a third reviewer.In total, 15 studies, including 920 patients, met the inclusion criteria; 575 (62.5%) of these patients underwent NOM after cCR, with the remaining patients forming a surgical control group. The weighted mean follow-up was 39.4 (12.7) months in the NOM group and 39.8 (5.1) months in the surgery group. The pooled regrowth rate in the NOM group was 21.3% at a mean of 15.6 (7.0) months. Surgical salvage was possible and was undertaken in 93.2% of these patients. Overall survival in the NOM group was 91.7%, while disease-free survival was 82.7%. For the comparison proctectomy group, pooled rates of local recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival were 8.4, 92.4, and 87.5%, respectively.NOM may be a feasible option for surgically eligible rectal cancer patients with cCR after nCRT. Before such a strategy can be widely implemented, further prospective data are required with standardized definitions, diagnostic criteria, and management protocols, with an emphasis on shared patient-provider decision making and patient-centered outcomes.
| S-EPMC6106774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe watch-and-wait (WW) strategy aims to spare patients with rectal cancer unnecessary resection.ObjectiveTo analyze the outcomes of WW among patients with rectal cancer who had a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective case series analysis conducted at a comprehensive cancer center in New York included patients who received a diagnosis of rectal adenocarcinoma between January 1, 2006, and January 31, 2015. The median follow-up was 43 months. Data analyses were conducted from June 1, 2016, to October 1, 2018.ExposuresPatients had a clinical complete response after completing neoadjuvant therapy and agreed to a WW strategy of active surveillance and possible salvage surgery (n = 113), or patients underwent total mesorectal excision and were found to have a pathologic complete response (pCR) at resection (n = 136).Main outcomes and measuresKaplan-Meier estimates were used for analyses of local regrowth and 5-year rates of overall survival, disease-free survival, and disease-specific survival.ResultsCompared with the 136 patients in the pCR group, the 113 patients in the WW group were older (median [range], 67.2 [32.1-90.9] vs 57.3 [25.0-87.9] years, P < .001) with cancers closer to the anal verge (median [range] height from anal verge, 5.5 [0.0-15.0] vs 7.0 [0.0-13.0] cm). All 22 local regrowths in the WW group were detected on routine surveillance and treated by salvage surgery (20 total mesorectal excisions plus 2 transanal excisions). Pelvic control after salvage surgery was maintained in 20 of 22 patients (91%). No pelvic recurrences occurred in the pCR group. Rectal preservation was achieved in 93 of 113 patients (82%) in the WW group (91 patients with no local regrowths plus 2 patients with local regrowths salvaged with transanal excision). At 5 years, overall survival was 73% (95% CI, 60%-89%) in the WW group and 94% (95% CI, 90%-99%) in the pCR group; disease-free survival was 75% (95% CI, 62%-90%) in the WW group and 92% (95% CI, 87%-98%) in the pCR group; and disease-specific survival was 90% (95% CI, 81%-99%) in the WW group and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%) in the pCR group. A higher rate of distant metastasis was observed among patients in the WW group who had local regrowth vs those who did not have local regrowth (36% vs 1%, P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceA WW strategy for select rectal cancer patients who had a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy resulted in excellent rectal preservation and pelvic tumor control; however, in the WW group, worse survival was noted along with a higher incidence of distant progression in patients with local regrowth vs those without local regrowth.
| S-EPMC6459120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWatch and wait (WW) protocols have gained increasing popularity for patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer and presumed complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. While studies have demonstrated comparable survival and recurrence rates between WW and radical surgery, the decision to undergo surgery has significant effects on patient quality of life. We sought to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing WW with abdominoperineal resection (APR) and low anterior resection (LAR) among patients with stage II/III rectal cancer.MethodsIn this comparative-effectiveness study, we built Markov microsimulation models to simulate disease progression, death, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for WW or APR/LAR. We assessed cost effectiveness using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with ICERs under $100,000/QALY considered cost effective. Probabilities of disease progression, death, and health utilities were extracted from published, peer-reviewed literature. We assessed costs from the payer perspective.ResultsWW dominated both LAR and APR at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000. Our model was most sensitive to rates of distant recurrence and regrowth after WW. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that WW was the dominant strategy over both APR and LAR over 100% of iterations across a range of WTP thresholds from $0-250,000.ConclusionsOur study suggests WW could reduce overall costs and increase effectiveness compared with either LAR or APR. Additional clinical research is needed to confirm the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of WW compared with surgery in rectal cancer.
| S-EPMC8810473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe watch-and-wait strategy offers a non-invasive therapeutic alternative for rectal cancer patients who have achieved a clinical complete response (cCR) after chemoradiotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of this strategy in comparation to surgical resection.MethodsStage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and achieved a cCR were selected from the databases of three centers. cCR was evaluated by findings from digital rectal examination, colonoscopy, and radiographic images. Patients in whom the watch-and-wait strategy was adopted were matched with patients who underwent radical resection through 1:1 propensity score matching analyses. Survival was calculated and compared in the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log rank test.ResultsA total of 117 patients in whom the watch-and-wait strategy was adopted were matched with 354 patients who underwent radical resection. After matching, there were 94 patients in each group, and no significant differences in term of age, sex, T stage, N stage or tumor location were observed between the two groups. The median follow-up time was 38.2 months. Patients in whom the watch-and-wait strategy was adopted exhibited a higher rate of local recurrences (14.9% vs. 1.1%), but most (85.7%) were salvageable. Three-year non-regrowth local recurrence-free survival was comparable between the two groups (98% vs. 98%, P = 0.506), but the watch-and-wait group presented an obvious advantage in terms of sphincter preservation, especially in patients with a tumor located within 3 cm of the anal verge (89.7% vs. 41.2%, P < 0.001). Three-year distant metastasis-free survival (88% in the watch-and-wait group vs. 89% in the surgical group, P = 0.874), 3-year disease-specific survival (99% vs. 96%, P = 0.643) and overall survival (99% vs. 96%, P = 0.905) were also comparable between the two groups, although a higher rate (35.7%) of distant metastases was observed in patients who exhibited local regrowth in the watch-and-wait group.ConclusionThe watch-and-wait strategy was safe, with similar survival outcomes but a superior sphincter preservation rate as compared to surgery in rectal cancer patients achieving a cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and could be offered as a promising conservative alternative to invasive radical surgery.
| S-EPMC7816381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSome 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionThe 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 registrationProtocol registration number: CRD42021244032 .
| S-EPMC8522111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe risk of recurrence in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer has historically been determined after surgery, relying on pathologic variables. A growing number of patients are being treated without surgery, and their risk of recurrence needs to be calculated differently.ObjectiveTo develop a dynamic calculator for estimating the probability of recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with rectal cancer who undergo total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) (induction systemic chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy) and either surgery or watch-and-wait management.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included patients who presented with stage II or III rectal cancer between June 1, 2009, and March 1, 2015, at a comprehensive cancer center. Conditional modeling was incorporated into a previously validated clinical calculator to allow the probability of RFS to be updated based on whether the patient remained in watch-and-wait management or underwent delayed surgery. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to March 2022.ExposureTNT followed by immediate surgery or watch-and-wait management with the possibility of delayed surgery.Main outcomes and measuresRFS, concordance index, calibration curves.ResultsOf the 302 patients in the cohort, 204 (68%) underwent surgery within 3 months from TNT completion (median [range] age, 51 [22-82] years; 78 [38%] women), 54 (18%) underwent surgery more than 3 months from TNT completion (ie, delayed surgery; median [range] age, 62 [31-87] years; 30 [56%] female), and 44 (14%) remained in watch-and-wait management as of April 21, 2021 (median [range] age, 58 [32-89] years; 16 [36%] women). Among patients who initially opted for watch-and-wait management, migration to surgery due to regrowth or patient choice occurred mostly within the first year following completion of TNT, and RFS did not differ significantly whether surgery was performed 3.0 to 5.9 months (73%; 95% CI, 52%-92%) vs 6.0 to 11.9 months (71%; 95% CI, 51%-99%) vs more than 12.0 months (70%; 95% CI, 49%-100%) from TNT completion (P = .70). RFS for patients in the watch-and-wait cohort at 12 months from completion of TNT more closely resembled patients who had undergone surgery and had a pathologic complete response than the watch-and-wait cohort at 3 months from completion of TNT. Accordingly, model performance improved over time, and the concordance index increased from 0.62 (95% CI, 0.53-0.71) at 3 months after TNT to 0.66 (95% CI, 0-0.75) at 12 months.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients with rectal cancer, the clinical calculator reliably estimated the likelihood of RFS for patients who underwent surgery immediately after TNT, patients who underwent delayed surgery after entering watch-and-wait management, and patients who remained in watch-and-wait management. Delayed surgery following attempted watch-and-wait did not appear to compromise oncologic outcomes. The risk calculator provided conditional survival estimates at any time during surveillance and could help physicians counsel patients with rectal cancer about the consequences of alternative treatment pathways and thereby support informed decisions that incorporate patients' preferences.
| S-EPMC9523500 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC10143332 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The management of rectal cancer has evolved significantly in the last few decades. Significant improvements in local disease control were achieved in the 1990s, with the introduction of total mesorectal excision and neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Level 1 evidence has shown that, with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) the rates of local recurrence can be lower than 6% and, as a result, neoadjuvant CRT currently represents the accepted standard of care. This approach has led to reliable tumor down-staging, with 15-27% patients with a pathological complete response (pCR)-defined as no residual cancer found on histological examination of the specimen. Patients who achieve pCR after CRT have better long-term outcomes, less risk of developing local or distal recurrence and improved survival. For all these reasons, sphincter-preserving procedures or organ-preserving options have been suggested, such as local excision of residual tumor or the omission of surgery altogether. Although local recurrence rate has been stable at 5-6% with this multidisciplinary management method, distal recurrence rates for locally-advanced rectal cancers remain in excess of 25% and represent the main cause of death in these patients. For this reason, more recent trials have been looking at the administration of full-dose systemic chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting (in order to offer early treatment of disseminated micrometastases, thus improving control of systemic disease) and selective use of radiotherapy only in non-responders or for low rectal tumors smaller than 5?cm.
| S-EPMC4650974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewPathological 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 findingsThe 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.SummaryThere 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.
| S-EPMC5857277 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA watch-and-wait strategy is a nonoperative alternative to sphincter-preserving surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. There are limited data about bowel function for patients undergoing this organ-preservation approach.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare bowel function in patients with rectal cancer managed with a watch-and-wait approach with bowel function in patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery (total mesorectal excision).DesignThis was a retrospective case-control study using patient-reported outcomes.SettingsThe study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center.PatientsTwenty-one patients underwent a watch-and-wait approach and were matched 1:1 with 21 patients from a pool of 190 patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, based on age, sex, and tumor distance from the anal verge.Main outcome measuresBowel function was measured using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Instrument.ResultsPatients in the watch-and-wait arm had better bowel function on the overall scale (median total score, 76 vs 55; p < 0.001) and on all of the subscales, with the greatest difference on the urgency/soilage subscale (median score, 20 vs 12; p < 0.001).LimitationsThe study was limited by its retrospective design, small sample size, and temporal variability between surgery and time of questionnaire completion.ConclusionsA watch-and-wait strategy correlated with overall better bowel function when compared with sphincter-preserving surgery using a comprehensive validated bowel dysfunction tool. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B218. FUNCIÓN EVACUATORIA INFORMADA POR PACIENTES EN CÁNCER RECTAL MANEJADO CON UNA ESTRATEGIA DE OBSERVAR Y ESPERAR DESPUÉS DE LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE: UN ESTUDIO DE CASOS Y CONTROLES: Observar y esperar es una alternativa no operativa a la cirugía de preservación del esfínter para pacientes con cáncer rectal localmente avanzado que logran una respuesta clínica completa después de la terapia neoadyuvante. Hay datos limitados sobre la función evacuatoria en pacientes sometidos a este abordaje para preservación de órganos.Evaluar la función evacuatoria en pacientes con cáncer rectal manejados con observar y esperar comparado a pacientes sometidos a cirugía de preservación de esfínteres (escisión mesorrectal total).Estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles utilizando resultados reportados por pacientes.Centro especializado oncológico.21 pacientes se sometieron a observar y esperar y se compararon con 21 pacientes de un grupo de 190 pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía de preservación de esfínteres controlando por edad, sexo y la distancia del tumor al borde anal.Función evacuatoria utilizando un instrumento de valoración del Centro de Cáncer Memorial Sloan Kettering.Los pacientes de observar y esperar demostraron mejor función evacuatoria en la escala general (puntuación total media, 76 versus 55; p <0,001) y en todas las subescalas, con la mayor diferencia en la subescala de urgencia / ensuciamiento fecal (puntuación media, 20 versus 12; p <0,001).Diseño retrospectivo, numero de muestra pequeño y variabilidad temporal entre la cirugía y el tiempo de finalización del cuestionario.Observar y esperar se correlacionó con mejor función evacuatoria en general en comparación con la cirugía de preservación del esfínter utilizando una herramienta integral validada para la disfunción evacuatoria. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B218. (Traducción-Dr. Adrián Ortega).
| S-EPMC7274891 | biostudies-literature