Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients treated with chemoradiotherapy with a complete clinical response followed by either a 'watch and wait' strategy or a total mesorectal excision. Methods: This was an observational retrospective study from a single institute. Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer following chemoradiotherapy with a complete clinical response from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014 were included. Results: The study population consisted of 18 patients who opted for a 'watch and wait' policy and 26 patients who underwent radical surgery after achieving a complete clinical response. Patients had no documented treatment complications under the watch and wait policy, while 13 patients who underwent radical surgery experienced significant morbidity. There were two local recurrences in the watch and wait group; both were treated with salvage resection and had no associated mortality. In the radical surgery group, 1 patient showed an incomplete pathologic response (ypT0N1), and the remaining 25 patients showed complete pathologic responses; 1 had a distant recurrence, which was managed non-operatively, and 2 patients died of unrelated causes. The 5-year overall survival rate and median disease-free survival time were 100 % and 69.78 months in the watch and wait group and 92.30 % and 89.04 months in the radical surgery group. Conclusions: A watch and wait policy avoids the morbidity associated with radical surgery and preserves oncologic outcomes in our retrospective study from a single institute. It could be considered a therapeutic option in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer following chemoradiotherapy with a complete clinical response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: While the standard of care for patients with rectal cancer who sustain a complete clinical response (cCR) to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) remains proctectomy with total mesorectal excision, data suggests that non-operative management may be a safe alternative. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes between patients treated with CRT that attained a cCR and opted for a vigilant surveillance to those of the patients who had a complete pathologic response (cPR) following proctectomy. Method: This is a retrospective review of patients treated for adenocarcinoma of the rectum who achieved either a cCR or a cPR following CRT. Patients with a cCR were enrolled in an active surveillance program which included regularly scheduled exams, proctoscopy, serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), endorectal ultrasound, and cross-sectional imaging. Outcomes were compared to those patients who underwent proctectomy with a cPR. Our primary outcome measures were post-treatment complications, recurrence, and survival. Results: We reviewed 18 patients who opted for surveillance after cCR and 30 patients who underwent proctectomy after a cPR. No non-operative patients had a documented treatment complication, while 17 patients with cPR suffered significant morbidity. There were two recurrences in the active surveillance group, one local and once distant, both treated by salvage resection with no associated mortality at 54 and 62 months. In the cPR group, one patient had a distant recurrence 24 months after surgery which was managed non-operatively. This patient died of unrelated causes 35 months after surgery. Conclusions: Active surveillance can be a safe option that avoids the morbidity associated with proctectomy and preserves oncologic outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]