An International Expert-Based Consensus on the Definition of a Clinical Near-Complete Response After Neoadjuvant (Chemo)radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: A variety of definitions for a clinical near-complete response after neoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy for rectal cancer are currently used. This variety leads to inconsistency in clinical practice, long-term outcome, and trial enrollment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to reach expert-based consensus on the definition of a clinical near-complete response after (chemo) radiotherapy. DESIGN: A modified Delphi process, including a systematic review, 3 surveys, and 2 meetings, was performed with an international expert panel consisting of 7 surgeons and 4 radiologists. The surveys consisted of individual features, statements, and feature combinations (endoscopy, T2-weighted MRI, and diffusion-weighted MRI). SETTING: The modified Delphi process was performed in an online setting; all 3 surveys were completed online by the expert panel, and both meetings were hosted online. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was to reach consensus (80% or more agreement). RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus on a 3-tier categorization of the near-complete response category based on the likelihood of the response to evolve into a clinical complete response after a longer waiting interval. The panelists agreed that a near-complete response is a temporary entity only to be used in the first 6 months after (chemo)radiotherapy. Furthermore, consensus was reached that the lymph node status should be considered when deciding on a near-complete response and that biopsies are not always needed when a near-complete response is found. No consensus was reached on whether primary staging characteristics have to be taken into account when deciding on a near-complete response. LIMITATIONS: This 3-tier subcategorization is expert-based; therefore, there is no supporting evidence for this subcategorization. Also, it is unclear whether this subcategorization can be generalized into clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on the use of a 3-tier categorization of a near-complete response, which can be helpful in daily practice as guidance for treatment and to inform patients with a near-complete response on the likelihood of successful organ preservation. See Video Abstract. UN CONSENSO INTERNACIONAL BASADO EN EXPERTOS ACERCA DE LA DEFINICIN DE UNA RESPUESTA CLNICA CASI COMPLETA DESPUS DE QUIMIORADIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE CONTRA EL CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:Actualmente, se utilizan una variedad de definiciones para una respuesta clínica casi completa después de quimioradioterapia neoadyuvante contra el cáncer de recto. Esta variedad resulta en inconsistencia en la práctica clínica, los resultados a largo plazo y la inscripción en ensayos.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue llegar a un consenso de expertos sobre la definición de una respuesta clínica casi completa después de quimioradioterapia.DISEÑO:Se realizó un proceso Delphi modificado que incluyó una revisión sistemática, 3 encuestas y 2 reuniones con un panel internacional de expertos compuesto por siete cirujanos y 4 radiólogos. Las encuestas consistieron en características individuales, declaraciones y combinaciones de características (endoscopía, T2W-MRI y DWI).AJUSTE:El proceso Delphi modificado se realizó en un entorno en línea; el panel de expertos completó las tres encuestas en línea y ambas reuniones se realizaron en línea.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado principal fue llegar a un consenso (≥80% de acuerdo).RESULTADOS:El panel de expertos llegó a un consenso sobre una categorización de tres niveles de la categoría de respuesta casi completa basada en la probabilidad de que la respuesta evolucione hacia una respuesta clínica completa después de un intervalo de espera más largo. Los panelistas coincidieron en que una respuesta casi completa es una entidad temporal que sólo debe utilizarse en los primeros 6 meses después de la quimioradioterapia. Además, se llegó a un consenso en que se debe considerar el estado de los nódulos linfáticos al decidir sobre una respuesta casi completa y que no siempre se necesitan biopsias cuando se encuentra una respuesta casi completa. No se llegó a un consenso sobre si se deben tener en cuenta las características primarias de estadificación al decidir una respuesta casi completa.LIMITACIONES:Esta subcategorización de 3 niveles está basada en expertos; por lo tanto, no hay evidencia que respalde esta subcategorización. Además, no está claro si esta subcategorización puede generalizarse a la práctica clínica.CONCLUSIONES:Se alcanzó consenso sobre el uso de una categorización de 3 niveles de una respuesta casi completa que puede ser útil en la práctica diaria como guía para el tratamiento y para informar a los pacientes con una respuesta casi completa sobre la probabilidad de una preservación exitosa del órgano. (Traducción - Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez).

Local Excision for organ preservation in early REctal cancer with No Adjuvant treatment (LORENA Trial): prospective observational study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Local resection (LR) is an alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) that avoids its associated morbidity to the detriment of oncological radicality in early stages of rectal cancer. There are several conditioning factors for the success of this strategy, such as poor prognosis histological factors (PPHF), involvement of resection margins, clinical under staging, or complications that may lead to the indication for radical surgery with TME. PATIENTS AND METHOD: An international multicenter prospective observational open-label study has been designed. Consecutive patients diagnosed with early rectal cancer (cT1N0 on MRI + / - endorectal ultrasound) whose lower limit is a maximum of 2 cm proximal to the ano-rectal junction will be included. The primary objective of the study is to determine the overall prevalence of PPHF after LR and requiring TME or postoperative radio-chemotherapy. DISCUSSION: The prevalence of PPHF conditioning the success of LR in early distal rectal cancer has been scarcely studied in the literature, and there are very few prospective data. Considering the increasing interest in the watch and wait strategy in rectal cancer and its possible application in early-stage tumors, it seems necessary to know this information. The results of this study will help guide clinical practice in patients with early distal rectal cancer. It will also provide quality information for the design of future comparative studies to improve organ preservation success in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05927584.

International Validation of the Immunoscore Biopsy in Patients With Rectal Cancer Managed by a Watch-and-Wait Strategy.

PURPOSE: No biomarker capable of improving selection and monitoring of patients with rectal cancer managed by watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy is currently available. Prognostic performance of the Immunoscore biopsy (ISB) was recently suggested in a preliminary study. METHODS: This international validation study included 249 patients with clinical complete response (cCR) managed by W&W strategy. Intratumoral CD3+ and CD8+ T cells were quantified on pretreatment rectal biopsies by digital pathology and converted to ISB. The primary end point was time to recurrence (TTR; the time from the end of neoadjuvant treatment to the date of local regrowth or distant metastasis). Associations between ISB and outcomes were analyzed by stratified Cox regression adjusted for confounders. Immune status of tumor-draining lymph nodes (n = 161) of 17 additional patients treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery was investigated by 3'RNA-Seq and immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Recurrence-free rates at 5 years were 91.3% (82.4%-100.0%), 62.5% (53.2%-73.3%), and 53.1% (42.4%-66.5%) with ISB High, ISB Intermediate, and ISB Low, respectively (hazard ratio [HR; Low v High], 6.51; 95% CI, 1.99 to 21.28; log-rank P = .0004). ISB was also significantly associated with disease-free survival (log-rank P = .0002), and predicted both local regrowth and distant metastasis. In multivariate analysis, ISB was independent of patient age, sex, tumor location, cT stage (T, primary tumor; c, clinical), cN stage (N, regional lymph node; c, clinical), and was the strongest predictor for TTR (HR [ISB High v Low], 6.93; 95% CI, 2.08 to 23.15; P = .0017). The addition of ISB to a clinical-based model significantly improved the prediction of recurrence. Finally, B-cell proliferation and memory in draining lymph nodes was evidenced in the draining lymph nodes of patients with cCR. CONCLUSION: The ISB is validated as a biomarker to predict both local regrowth and distant metastasis, with a gradual scaling of the risk of pejorative outcome.

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. METHODS: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2 : 1). RESULTS: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). CONCLUSION: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding.

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL). BACKGROUND: AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma. METHODS: This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated. RESULTS: This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies.

Watch and wait after neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer: comparison of outcomes in patients with and without a complete response at first reassessment in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD).

BACKGROUND: In rectal cancer, watch and wait for patients with a cCR after neoadjuvant treatment has an established evidence base. However, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and management of a near-cCR. This study aimed to compare outcomes in patients who achieved a cCR at first reassessment versus later reassessment. METHODS: This registry study included patients from the International Watch & Wait Database. Patients were categorized as having a cCR at first reassessment or at later reassessment (that is near-cCR at first reassessment) based on MRI and endoscopy. Organ preservation, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were calculated. Subgroup analyses were done for near-cCR groups based on the response evaluation according to modality. RESULTS: A total of 1010 patients were identified. At first reassessment, 608 patients had a cCR; 402 had a cCR at later reassessment. Median follow-up was 2.6 years for patients with a cCR at first reassessment and 2.9 years for those with a cCR at later reassessment. The 2-year organ preservation rate was 77.8 (95 per cent c.i. 74.2 to 81.5) and 79.3 (75.1 to 83.7) per cent respectively (P = 0.499). Similarly, no differences were found between groups in distant metastasis-free survival or overall survival rate. Subgroup analyses showed a higher organ preservation rate in the group with a near-cCR categorized exclusively by MRI. CONCLUSION: Oncological outcomes for patients with a cCR at later reassessment are no worse than those of patients with a cCR at first reassessment.

The Risk of Distant Metastases in Patients With Clinical Complete Response Managed by Watch and Wait After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer: The Influence of Local Regrowth in the International Watch and Wait Database.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 30% of patients with rectal cancer develop local regrowth after initial clinical complete response managed by watch and wait. These patients might be at higher risk for distant metastases. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate risk factors for distant metastases using time-dependent analyses. DESIGN: Data from an international watch and wait database were retrospectively reviewed. Cox regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for worse distant metastases-free survival. Conditional survival modeling was used to investigate the impact of risk factors on the development of distant metastases. SETTING: Retrospective, multicenter database. PATIENTS: A total of 793 patients (47 institutions) with rectal cancer and clinical complete response to neoadjuvant treatment from the International Watch & Wait Database were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distant metastases-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 793 patients managed with watch and wait (median follow-up 55.2 mo)' 85 patients (10.7%) had distant metastases. Fifty-one of 85 patients (60%) had local regrowth at any time. Local regrowth was an independent factor associated with worse distant metastases-free survival in the multivariable model. Using conditional estimates, patients with local regrowth without distant metastases for 5 years (from decision to watch and wait) remained at higher risk for development of distant metastases for 1 subsequent year compared to patients without local regrowth (5-year conditional distant metastases-free survival 94.9% vs 98.4%). LIMITATIONS: Lack of information on adjuvant chemotherapy, salvage surgery for local regrowth, and heterogeneity of individual surveillance/follow-up strategies used may have affected results. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with clinical complete response managed by watch and wait, development of local regrowth at any time is a risk factor for distant metastases. The risk of distant metastases remains higher for 5 years after development of local regrowth. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C53. EL RIESGO DE METSTASIS A DISTANCIA EN PACIENTES CON RESPUESTA CLNICA COMPLETA MANEJADA POR WATCH AND WAIT DESPUS DE LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO LA INFLUENCIA DEL NUEVO CRECIMIENTO LOCAL EN LA BASE DE DATOS INTERNACIONAL WATCH AND WAIT: ANTECEDENTES:Casi el 30 % de los pacientes con cáncer de recto desarrollan un nuevo crecimiento local después de la respuesta clínica completa inicial manejada por watch and wait. Estos pacientes podrían tener un mayor riesgo de metástasis a distancia.OBJETIVO:Investigar los factores de riesgo de metástasis a distancia mediante análisis dependientes del tiempo.DISEÑO:Se revisó retrospectivamente los datos de la base de datos internacional de Watch and Wait. Se utilizó el análisis de regresión de Cox para determinar los factores de riesgo de peor sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia. Se utilizó un modelo de sobrevida condicional para investigar el impacto de los factores de riesgo en el desarrollo de metástasis a distancia. El tiempo transcurrido hasta el evento se calculó utilizando la fecha de decisión para watch and wait y la fecha del nuevo crecimiento local para el diagnóstico de metástasis a distancia.ESCENARIOBase de datos multicéntrica retrospectiva.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron un total de 793 pacientes (47 instituciones) con cáncer de recto y respuesta clínica completa al tratamiento neoadyuvante de la base de datos internacional de Watch and Wait.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Desarrollo de metástasis a distancia.RESULTADOS:De los 793 pacientes tratados con watch and wait (mediana de seguimiento de 55,2 meses), 85 (10,7%) tenían metástasis a distancia. 51 de 85 (60%) tuvieron recrecimiento local en algún momento. El recrecimiento local fue un factor independiente asociado a una peor supervivencia libre de metástasis a distancia en el modelo multivariable. Además, al usar estimaciones condicionales, los pacientes con recrecimiento local sin metástasis a distancia durante 5 años (desde la decisión de watch and wait) permanecieron en mayor riesgo de desarrollar metástasis a distancia durante un año subsiguiente en comparación con los pacientes sin recrecimiento local (sobrevida libre de metástasis a distancia a 5 años: recrecimiento local 94,9% frente a no recrecimiento local 98,4%).LIMITACIONES:La falta de información relacionada con el uso de quimioterapia adyuvante, las características específicas de la cirugía de rescate para el nuevo crecimient o local y la heterogeneidad de las estrategias individuales de vigilancia/seguimiento utilizadas pueden haber afectado los resultados observados.CONCLUSIONES:En pacientes con respuesta clínica completa manejados por Watch and Wait, el desarrollo de recrecimiento local en cualquier momento es un factor de riesgo para metástasis a distancia. El riesgo de metástasis a distancia sigue siendo mayor durante 5 años después del desarrollo de un nuevo crecimiento local. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C53. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio).

Watch and wait: Why, to whom and how.

The current standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer includes neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) followed by total mesorrectal excision (TME). The observation of significant primary tumor response to radiation and chemotherapy led to the idea of organ-preserving strategies in selected patients who achieved clinical, endoscopic and radiological evidence of complete tumor regression. One of these strategies includes no immediate surgery with close surveillance, known as the Watch and Wait strategy (W&W). The potential benefits of this approach with the avoidance of radical TME have to be weighed against the potential risk of local tumor regrowth. Exploration of these advantages and disadvantages will attempt to answer why W&W may be an attractive alternative to rectal cancer patients and their treating physicians. In order to safely implement this strategy, some key issues related to baseline staging, neoadjuvant treatment regimens, timing for tumor response assessment, must be carefully considered. The combination of these features will attempt to clarify "how" and "to whom" the W&W strategy may be considered. Ultimately, in the setting of contemporary neoadjuvant treatment regimens including total neoadjuvant therapy strategies (TNT), the achievement of a clinical complete response is likely to affect a significant proportion of patients. As endoscopic and radiological imaging modalities have evolved and improved, W&W is expected to become an integral part during multidisciplinary management decision. Finally, understanding the clinical consequences of local tumor regrowth both in terms of local and distant relapse may allow for optimal and safe selection of patients fully aware of advantages or disadvantages of this strategy.

Current controversies in TNM for the radiological staging of rectal cancer and how to deal with them: results of a global online survey and multidisciplinary expert consensus.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the main problem areas in the applicability of the current TNM staging system (8th ed.) for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer and provide practice recommendations on how to handle them. METHODS: A global case-based online survey was conducted including 41 image-based rectal cancer cases focusing on various items included in the TNM system. Cases reaching < 80% agreement among survey respondents were identified as problem areas and discussed among an international expert panel, including 5 radiologists, 6 colorectal surgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, and 3 pathologists. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-one respondents (from 32 countries) completed the survey. Sixteen problem areas were identified, related to cT staging in low-rectal cancers, definitions for cT4b and cM1a disease, definitions for mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, evaluation of lymph nodes versus tumor deposits, and staging of lateral lymph nodes. The expert panel recommended strategies on how to handle these, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define MRF involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations derived from this global survey and expert panel discussion may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting. KEY POINTS: • Via a case-based online survey (incl. 321 respondents from 32 countries), we identified 16 problem areas related to the applicability of the TNM staging system for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer. • A multidisciplinary panel of experts recommended strategies on how to handle these problem areas, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define mesorectal fascia involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. • These recommendations may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting.

Watch and wait after a clinical complete response in rectal cancer patients younger than 50 years.

BACKGROUND: Young-onset rectal cancer, in patients less than 50 years, is expected to increase in the coming years. A watch-and-wait strategy is nowadays increasingly practised in patients with a clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant treatment. Nevertheless, there may be reluctance to offer organ preservation treatment to young patients owing to a potentially higher oncological risk. This study compared patients aged less than 50 years with those aged 50 years or more to identify possible differences in oncological outcomes of watch and wait. METHODS: The study analysed data from patients with a cCR after neoadjuvant therapy in whom surgery was omitted, registered in the retrospective-prospective, multicentre International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD). RESULTS: In the IWWD, 1552 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 199 (12.8 per cent) were aged less than 50 years. Patients younger than 50 years had a higher T category of disease at diagnosis (P = 0.011). The disease-specific survival rate at 3 years was 98 (95 per cent c.i. 93 to 99) per cent in this group, compared with 97 (95 to 98) per cent in patients aged over 50 years (hazard ratio (HR) 1.67, 95 per cent c.i. 0.76 to 3.64; P = 0.199). The cumulative probability of local regrowth at 3 years was 24 (95 per cent c.i. 18 to 31) per cent in patients less than 50 years and 26 (23 to 29) per cent among those aged 50 years or more (HR 1.09, 0.79 to 1.49; P = 0.603). Both groups had a cumulative probability of distant metastases of 10 per cent at 3 years (HR 1.00, 0.62 to 1.62; P = 0.998). CONCLUSION: There is no additional oncological risk in young patients compared with their older counterparts when following a watch-and-wait strategy after a cCR. In light of a shared decision-making process, watch and wait should be also be discussed with young patients who have a cCR after neoadjuvant treatment.

Urethral Injury and Other Urologic Injuries During Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: An International Collaborative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for urethral and urologic injuries during transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) and evaluate outcomes. BACKGROUND: Urethral injury is a rare complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) that has not been reported during abdominal proctectomy. The Low Rectal Cancer Development Program international taTME registry recently reported a 0.8% incidence, but actual incidence and mechanisms of injury remain largely unknown. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of taTME cases complicated by urologic injury was conducted. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, intraoperative details, and outcomes were analyzed, along with surgeons' experience and training in taTME. Surgeons' opinion of contributing factors and best approaches to avoid injuries were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-four urethral, 2 ureteral, and 3 bladder injuries were reported during taTME operations performed over 7 years by 32 surgical teams. Twenty injuries occurred during the teams' first 8 taTME cases ("early experience"), whereas the remainder occurred between the 12th to 101st case. Injuries resulted in a 22% conversion rate and 8% rate of unplanned APR or Hartmann procedure. At median follow-up of 27.6 months (range, 3-85), the urethral repair complication rate was 26% with a 9% rate of failed urethral repair requiring permanent urinary diversion. In patients with successful repair, 18% reported persistent urinary dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Urologic injuries result in substantial morbidity. Our survey indicated that those occurring in surgeons' early experience might best be reduced by implementation of structured taTME training and proctoring, whereas those occurring later relate to case complexity and may be avoided by more stringent case selection.

Conditional recurrence-free survival of clinical complete responders managed by watch and wait after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer in the International Watch & Wait Database: a retrospective, international, multicentre registry study.

BACKGROUND: Watch and wait is a novel management strategy in patients with rectal cancer who have a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Surveillance of these patients is generally intensive, because local regrowth (with the potential for salvage) occurs in 25% of patients, and distant metastases occur in 10% of patients. It is unclear for how long these patients should be followed up. To address this issue, we did conditional survival modelling using the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD), which is a large-scale registry of patients with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy who have been managed by a watch-and-wait strategy. METHODS: We did a retrospective, multicentre registry study using a dataset from the IWWD, which includes data from 47 clinics across 15 countries. We selected patients (aged ≥18 years) with rectal cancer who had a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who were subsequently managed by a watch-and-wait strategy between Nov 25, 1991, and Dec 31, 2015. Patients who had not achieved a clinical complete response or who had undergone any surgical procedure were excluded. The criteria used for defining a clinical complete response and the specific surveillance strategies were at the discretion of each participating centre. We used conditional survival modelling to estimate the probability of patients remaining free of local regrowth or distant metastasis for an additional 2 years after sustaining a clinical complete response or being distant metastasis-free for 1, 3, and 5 years from the date of the decision to commence watch and wait. The primary outcomes were conditional local regrowth-free survival at 3 years, and conditional distant metastasis-free survival at 5 years. FINDINGS: We identified 793 patients in the IWWD with clinical complete response who had been managed by a watch-and-wait strategy. Median follow-up was 55·2 months (IQR 36·0-75·6). The probability of remaining free from local regrowth for an additional 2 years if a patient had a sustained clinical complete response for 1 year was 88·1% (95% CI 85·8-90·9), for 3 years was 97·3% (95·2-98·6), and for 5 years was 98·6% (97·6-100·0). The probably of remaining free from distant metastasis for a further 2 years in patients who had a clinical complete response without distant metastasis for 1 year was 93·8% (92·3-95·9), for 3 years was 97·8% (96·6-99·3), and for 5 years was 96·6% (94·0-98·9). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that the intensity of active surveillance in patients with rectal cancer managed by a watch-and-wait approach could be reduced if they achieve and maintain a clinical complete response within the first 3 years of starting this approach. FUNDING: European Registration of Cancer Care, financed by the European Society of Surgical Oncology, the Champalimaud Foundation Lisbon, the Bas Mulder Award, granted by the Alpe d'HuZes Foundation and the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Research Council Advanced Grant, and the National Institute of Health and Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.