Cargando…

The watch-and-wait strategy versus radical resection for rectal cancer patients with a good response (≤ycT2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE: This study aims to oncologic outcomes of the watch-and-wait (WW) strategy compared with radical resection (RR). METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and achieved ≤ycT2 between 2008 and 2016 were included. The mean follow-up time was 61 month...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Chungyeop, Park, In Ja, Lim, Seok-Byung, Yu, Chang Sik, Kim, Jin Cheon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Surgical Society 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9763776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36601336
http://dx.doi.org/10.4174/astr.2022.103.6.350
_version_ 1784853135174402048
author Lee, Chungyeop
Park, In Ja
Lim, Seok-Byung
Yu, Chang Sik
Kim, Jin Cheon
author_facet Lee, Chungyeop
Park, In Ja
Lim, Seok-Byung
Yu, Chang Sik
Kim, Jin Cheon
author_sort Lee, Chungyeop
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This study aims to oncologic outcomes of the watch-and-wait (WW) strategy compared with radical resection (RR). METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and achieved ≤ycT2 between 2008 and 2016 were included. The mean follow-up time was 61 months (range, 0–168 months). Recurrence-free survival (RFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared. A total of 446 patients were included, and WW was adopted for 34 patients. RESULTS: WW patients were older (P = 0.022) and less advanced initial cT stage (P = 0.004). Ten patients in the WW group (29.4%) experienced local regrowth. Later, distant metastases occurred in 7 of these patients. The 5-year RFS (74.1% vs. 79.5%), DMFS (74.1% vs. 81.6%), and OS (90.4% vs. 87.7%) for the WW and RR groups were not statistically different. However, LRFS in the WW group was significantly lower (65.1% vs. 97.0%, P < 0.001). The initial cT stage was associated with RFS (P = 0.019) and LRFS (P = 0.037). WW was an independent risk factor for LRFS (P < 0.001) and DMFS (P = 0.024). After 1:4 propensity score matching between the WW and RR groups, there was no difference in RFS and OS. However, the 5-year LRFS (67.5% vs. 96.5%) and DMFS (73.2% vs. 86.4%) demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: By appointing the WW strategy, oncologic safety was not ensured. The WW strategy must be implemented with caution in patients with ≤ycT2 stage, particularly those with advanced initial cT stage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9763776
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher The Korean Surgical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97637762023-01-03 The watch-and-wait strategy versus radical resection for rectal cancer patients with a good response (≤ycT2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy Lee, Chungyeop Park, In Ja Lim, Seok-Byung Yu, Chang Sik Kim, Jin Cheon Ann Surg Treat Res Original Article PURPOSE: This study aims to oncologic outcomes of the watch-and-wait (WW) strategy compared with radical resection (RR). METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and achieved ≤ycT2 between 2008 and 2016 were included. The mean follow-up time was 61 months (range, 0–168 months). Recurrence-free survival (RFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared. A total of 446 patients were included, and WW was adopted for 34 patients. RESULTS: WW patients were older (P = 0.022) and less advanced initial cT stage (P = 0.004). Ten patients in the WW group (29.4%) experienced local regrowth. Later, distant metastases occurred in 7 of these patients. The 5-year RFS (74.1% vs. 79.5%), DMFS (74.1% vs. 81.6%), and OS (90.4% vs. 87.7%) for the WW and RR groups were not statistically different. However, LRFS in the WW group was significantly lower (65.1% vs. 97.0%, P < 0.001). The initial cT stage was associated with RFS (P = 0.019) and LRFS (P = 0.037). WW was an independent risk factor for LRFS (P < 0.001) and DMFS (P = 0.024). After 1:4 propensity score matching between the WW and RR groups, there was no difference in RFS and OS. However, the 5-year LRFS (67.5% vs. 96.5%) and DMFS (73.2% vs. 86.4%) demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: By appointing the WW strategy, oncologic safety was not ensured. The WW strategy must be implemented with caution in patients with ≤ycT2 stage, particularly those with advanced initial cT stage. The Korean Surgical Society 2022-12 2022-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9763776/ /pubmed/36601336 http://dx.doi.org/10.4174/astr.2022.103.6.350 Text en Copyright © 2022, the Korean Surgical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research is an Open Access Journal. All articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Lee, Chungyeop
Park, In Ja
Lim, Seok-Byung
Yu, Chang Sik
Kim, Jin Cheon
The watch-and-wait strategy versus radical resection for rectal cancer patients with a good response (≤ycT2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
title The watch-and-wait strategy versus radical resection for rectal cancer patients with a good response (≤ycT2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
title_full The watch-and-wait strategy versus radical resection for rectal cancer patients with a good response (≤ycT2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
title_fullStr The watch-and-wait strategy versus radical resection for rectal cancer patients with a good response (≤ycT2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
title_full_unstemmed The watch-and-wait strategy versus radical resection for rectal cancer patients with a good response (≤ycT2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
title_short The watch-and-wait strategy versus radical resection for rectal cancer patients with a good response (≤ycT2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
title_sort watch-and-wait strategy versus radical resection for rectal cancer patients with a good response (≤yct2) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9763776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36601336
http://dx.doi.org/10.4174/astr.2022.103.6.350
work_keys_str_mv AT leechungyeop thewatchandwaitstrategyversusradicalresectionforrectalcancerpatientswithagoodresponseyct2afterneoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy
AT parkinja thewatchandwaitstrategyversusradicalresectionforrectalcancerpatientswithagoodresponseyct2afterneoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy
AT limseokbyung thewatchandwaitstrategyversusradicalresectionforrectalcancerpatientswithagoodresponseyct2afterneoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy
AT yuchangsik thewatchandwaitstrategyversusradicalresectionforrectalcancerpatientswithagoodresponseyct2afterneoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy
AT kimjincheon thewatchandwaitstrategyversusradicalresectionforrectalcancerpatientswithagoodresponseyct2afterneoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy
AT leechungyeop watchandwaitstrategyversusradicalresectionforrectalcancerpatientswithagoodresponseyct2afterneoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy
AT parkinja watchandwaitstrategyversusradicalresectionforrectalcancerpatientswithagoodresponseyct2afterneoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy
AT limseokbyung watchandwaitstrategyversusradicalresectionforrectalcancerpatientswithagoodresponseyct2afterneoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy
AT yuchangsik watchandwaitstrategyversusradicalresectionforrectalcancerpatientswithagoodresponseyct2afterneoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy
AT kimjincheon watchandwaitstrategyversusradicalresectionforrectalcancerpatientswithagoodresponseyct2afterneoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy