Cargando…

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 reasse...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Temmink, Sofieke J D, Peeters, Koen C M J, Bahadoer, Renu R, Kranenbarg, Elma Meershoek-Klein, Roodvoets, Annet G H, Melenhorst, Jarno, Burger, Jacobus W A, Wolthuis, Albert, Renehan, Andrew G, Figueiredo, Nuno L, Pares, Oriol, Martling, Anna, Perez, Rodrigo O, Beets, Geerard L, van de Velde, Cornelis J H, Nilsson, Per J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10364523/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36972213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad051
Descripción
Sumario: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.