ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: cT3cdT4, cN2, mesorectal nodes > 8 mm, clinically positive lateral nodes, extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) and mesorectal fascia threatening (MRF+) have been utilized as exclusion criteria in several studies on the watch-and-wait (w&w) strategy. Here, our aim was to validate these criteria through a post hoc analysis of two pooled prospective studies on w&w following routine radio(chemo)therapy. METHODS: A review of baseline magnetic resonance imaging was performed in a subgroup of 223 patients treated at a single institution. Of these, 17.9 % started w&w, 12.6 % achieved clinical complete response (cCR) and 9.0 % sustained cCR during median follow-up of 54 months. RESULTS: The multivariable logistic analysis showed that the proportion of circumferential bowel involvement and EMVI significantly influenced the chance of sustained cCR; odds ratios were 0.063 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.008-0.489, p = 0.008), and 0.109 (95 % CI 0.014-0.850, p = 0.034), respectively. Sustained cCR was observed in none of the 57 patients with 90 %-100 % circumferential bowel involvement and in only one of the 89 patients with EMVI. In contrast, cT3cdT4, cN2, mesorectal nodes > 8 mm, clinically positive lateral nodes or MRF+ were not independently associated with sustained cCR. Among the subgroups of patients with these features but without (near-)circular tumour or EMVI+, sustained cCR was observed in 12 %-25 % of patients. CONCLUSION: Sustained cCR after routine preoperative radio(chemo)therapy is unlikely in patients with (near-)circular tumour or EMVI, whereas patients with cT3cdT4, cN2, mesorectal nodes > 8 mm, clinically positive lateral nodes and MRF+ should not be denied w&w.
Subject(s)
Organ Preservation , Rectal Neoplasms , Humans , Treatment Outcome , Prospective Studies , Watchful Waiting/methods , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Chemoradiotherapy , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalABSTRACT
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.
