Search

Objective: Chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy is a standard treatment option for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC). Esophagectomy is a high-risk procedure, and recent evidence suggests select patients may benefit from omitting or delaying surgery. This study aims to compare surgery versus active surveillance for LAEC patients with complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT)., Methods: Decision analysis with Markov modeling was used. The base case was a 60-year-old man with T3N0M0 esophageal cancer with cCR after nCRT. The decision was modeled for a 5-year time horizon. Primary outcomes were life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Probabilities and utilities were derived through the literature. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed using ranges from the literature with consideration for clinical plausibility., Results: Surgery was favored for survival with an expected life-years of 2.89 versus 2.64. After incorporating quality of life, active surveillance was favored, with an expected QALY of 1.70 versus 1.56. The model was sensitive to probability of recurrence on active surveillance (threshold value 0.598), probability of recurrence being resectable (0.318), and disutility of previous esophagectomy (-0.091). The model was not sensitive to perioperative morbidity and mortality., Conclusions: Our study finds that surgery increases life expectancy but decreases QALY. Although the incremental change in QALY for either modality is insufficient to make broad clinical recommendations, our study demonstrates that either approach is acceptable. As probabilities of key factors are further defined in the literature, treatment decisions for patients with LAEC and a cCR after nCRT should consider histology, patient values, and quality of life., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement Dr Kidane discloses receiving speaker and advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Merk, Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, and Medtronic. Dr Kidane is the associate statistical editor for the American Association for Thoracic Surgery. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Owing to multimodal treatment and complex surgery, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) exerts a large healthcare burden. Watch and wait (W&W) may be cost saving by removing the need for surgery and inpatient care. This systematic review seeks to identify the economic impact of W&W, compared with standard care, in patients achieving a complete clinical response (cCR) following neoadjuvant therapy for LARC., Methods: The PubMed, OVID Medline, OVID Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from inception to 26 April 2024. All economic evaluations (EEs) that compared W&W with standard care were included. Reporting and methodological quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), BMJ and Philips checklists. Narrative synthesis was performed. Primary and secondary outcomes were (incremental) cost-effectiveness ratios and the net financial cost., Results: Of 1548 studies identified, 27 were assessed for full-text eligibility and 12 studies from eight countries (2016-2024) were included. Seven cost-effectiveness analyses (complete EEs) and five cost analyses (partial EEs) utilized model-based (n = 7) or trial-based (n = 5) analytics with significant variations in methodological design and reporting quality. W&W showed consistent cost effectiveness (n = 7) and cost saving (n = 12) compared with surgery from third-party payer and patient perspectives. Critical parameters identified by uncertainty analysis were rates of local and distant recurrence in W&W, salvage surgery, perioperative mortality and utilities assigned to W&W and surgery., Conclusion: Despite heterogenous methodological design and reporting quality, W&W is likely to be cost effective and cost saving compared with standard care following cCR in LARC. Clinical Trials Registration PROSPERO CRD42024513874., Competing Interests: Disclosure: Ishraq Murshed, Zachary Bunjo, Warren Seow, Ishmam Murshed, Sergei Bedrikovetski, Michelle Thomas, and Tarik Sammour have declared no conflicts of interest that may be relevant to the contents of this study., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Neoadjuvant long course chemoradiotherapy (NLCRT) for rectal cancer can result in complete pathological response (pCR). In 2017, we started offering patients who had a complete clinical response (cCR), a choice between total mesorectal excision (TME) and an intensive surveillance or 'watch and wait' (W&W) program. We report the early outcomes of this prospective study., Methods: All patients undergoing NLCRT from 2017 to 2019 were included. All patients were restaged at 8 weeks, and those who had a cCR were offered TME or W&W., Results: Of 59 patients who underwent NLCRT, 55 had restaging. Eleven of these patients had a cCR (20%). Three chose to have TME and all had a pCR. Eight were enrolled in W&W. Two patients were diagnosed with local regrowth and underwent TME at 7 and 17 months after NLCRT. A further nine patients, who were surgically unfit or refused TME, and had an excellent response to NLCRT, but one that did not reach criteria for a cCR, were also managed with W&W. Of these, two patients developed regrowth with distant metastases. From 2017 to 2019, of the 17 patients who were managed with a W&W approach, 13 patients have remained regrowth free after a median of 28 (13-58) months of W&W., Conclusion: Preliminary findings suggest management with W&W, following cCR, may be a safe alternative to TME. There have so far been no instances of distant failure, and those with cCR that had regrowth, were identified early and successfully managed with salvage TME., (© 2022 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)

Therapeutic goal for locally advance rectal cancer (LARC) patients includes long-term survival and function preservation of pelvic organs. During the recent two decades, treatment strategy for LARC is gradually shifing to minimally invasive surgery, even avoiding a major surgery. "Watch and wait (W&W)" strategy is effective in dramatically decreasing surgical trauma and significantly improving preservation of defecation, urination and sexual function. Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) shifts all or part of adjuvant chemotherapy to the neoadjuvant phase and has showed obvious advantage in tumor shrinkage and complete clinical response (cCR) achievement. This article will summarize the transition of treatment strategy of LARC towards W&W from standard treatment. After more than ten years of development, both NCCN and ESMO guidelines recommend stratified neoadjuvant treatment considerations based on distinct risk classifications and especially suggest TNT for LARC patients with advanced diseases, which affirms the value of TNT in tumor shrinkage. Although accumulating data show that pelvic control and organ preservation using W&W strategy after cCR is equal or non-inferior to standard surgery, impact on long-term survival still needs prospective randomized controlled study; no consensus has been achieved for the detail of the W&W strategy. Thus W&W strategy is suggested to applied in hospitals specialized in the treatment of rectal cancer within the framework of multiple disciplinary treatment. In view of special medical conditions of our country, we still need to accumulate more experience and data of W&W strategy for rectal cancer patients with appeals for sphincter preservation and actively participate in international researches.

Aim: Observation with close follow-up ("watch and wait") is a recognized treatment option in patients who achieve a complete clinical response to long course chemoradiotherapy. This review of a prospective database aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes among patients with a complete clinical response managed with observation., Methods: A prospective study of 32 patients who achieved a complete clinical response was undertaken. The primary outcomes measured were overall and recurrence-free survival, and rate of organ preservation in patients who deferred immediate surgery., Results: Seven patients developed local regrowth over a median follow-up period of 38 months (range, 9-91 months). Median time to detection was 12 months. All seven underwent salvage surgery with complete surgical clearance. One patient developed combined local and systemic recurrence following a low anterior resection. Organ preservation was possible in 25 (78%) patients who sustained a complete clinical response with no evidence of local regrowth or disease recurrence. Among the patients who sustained a complete response, two developed isolated systemic disease. Overall and recurrence-free survival was 95.7% and 87.0%, respectively., Conclusion: The majority of patients with rectal cancer who achieved a complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy and managed with a "watch and wait" approach preserved their rectum and did not develop cancer relapse. Salvage surgery was achieved in all patients who developed local regrowth. The study supports a period of observation in rectal cancer patients who achieve a complete clinical response., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Aims: Following chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer, the addition of contact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) in partial responders might increase the proportion of patients with a clinical complete response (cCR) and who are thus suitable for watch and wait management. However, the long-term cost-effectiveness of this approach has not been evaluated., Materials and Methods: Decision analytical modelling and a Markov simulation were used to compare long-term costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness from a third-party payer (National Health Service) perspective for treatment strategies after chemoradiotherapy; watch and wait with CXB when a cCR was not initially achieved after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (WW CXB ), watch and wait with EBRT alone (WW EBRT ) and radical surgery for all patients. The effect of uncertainty in model parameters and patient demographics was investigated., Results: WW CXB had a higher QALY payoff than both radical surgery and WW EBRT and was less costly in most scenarios and demographic cohorts. In all plausible scenarios, WW CXB was the most cost-effective, at a threshold of £20 000/QALY. This finding was insensitive to uncertainty associated with model parameters., Conclusions: WW CXB is likely to be cost-effective compared with both WW EBRT alone and radical surgery. These findings support the use of CXB boost as an adjunct to a watch and wait strategy., (Copyright © 2017 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer receive preoperative chemoradiation as the standard of care, producing a pathological complete response in 10-20% and a complete clinical response (CCR) in 20-30%. Small observational studies suggest a selective non-operative management with rigorous surveillance is an option and is increasingly being advocated in many parts of the world for patients who achieve a CCR or near CCR. The assumption is that oncological outcomes for good responders, who are observed, compare favourably with patients subjected to radical surgery. Late regrowth of the primary is rare, almost invariably endoluminal and, hence, can be salvaged. However, concerns remain among some surgeons and oncologists regarding the reproducibility of published results in routine practice. We have previously reviewed this topic. The aim of this brief overview was to re-assess the feasibility and safety of a non-operative approach based on the currently available literature. We make recommendations as to the quality of care required to undertake this management. Significant heterogeneity remains in the initial inclusion criteria, staging and restaging methods, study design, timing of assessment, duration and rigour of follow-up of the trials reviewed - all of which obscure the validity of the results., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.

A wait-and-see policy might be considered instead of surgery for rectal cancer patients with no residual tumor or involved lymph nodes on imaging or endoscopy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (clinical complete response, cCR). In this cohort study, we compared the oncologic outcomes of rectal cancer patients with a cCR who were managed according to a wait-and-see policy (observation group) or with surgery (surgery group). In the observation group, follow-up was performed every 3 months for the first year and consisted of MRI, endoscopy with biopsy, computed tomography and transrectal ultrasonography. In the surgery group, patients received radical surgery. Long-term oncologic outcomes were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Thirty patients were enrolled in the observation group (median follow-up, 60 months; range, 18-100 months), and 92 patients were enrolled in the surgery group (median follow-up, 58 months; range, 18-109 months). The 5-year disease free survival and overall survival rates were similar in the two groups: 90.0% vs. 94.3% (P = 0.932) and 100.0% vs. 95.6% (P = 0.912), respectively. We conclude that for rectal cancer patients with a cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, a wait-and-see policy with strict selection criteria, follow-up and salvage treatments achieves outcomes at least as good as radical surgery. Additionally, we declare that the pCR (pathologic complete regression) and non-pCR subgroups of patients with a cCR have similar long-term failure (local recurrence and/or distant metastasis) rate.

Aim: The standard treatment for low rectal cancer is preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with low anterior resection with diverting ileostomy or abdominoperineal resection, both of which have significant long‐term effects on bowel and sexual function. Due to the high morbidity of surgery, there has been increasing interest in nonoperative management for low rectal cancer. The aim of this work is to conduct a pan‐Canadian Phase II trial assessing the safety of nonoperative management for low rectal cancer. Method: Patients with Stage II or III low rectal cancer completing chemoradiotherapy according to standard of care at participating centres will be assessed for complete clinical response 8–14 weeks following completion of chemoradiotherapy. Subjects achieving a clinical complete response will undergo active surveillance including endoscopy, imaging and bloodwork at regular intervals for 24 months. The primary outcome will be the rate of local regrowth 2 years after chemoradiotherapy. Nonoperative management will be considered safe (i.e. as effective as surgery to achieve local control) if the rate of local regrowth is ≤30% and surgical salvage is possible for all local regrowths. Secondary outcomes will include disease‐free and overall survival. Conclusion: The results will be highly clinically relevant, as it is expected that nonoperative management will be safe and lead to widespread adoption of nonoperative management in Canada. This change in practice has the potential to decrease the number of patients requiring surgery and the costs associated with surgery and long‐term surgical morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opinion Statement: Despite decades of high-quality research, the treatment of rectal cancer remains a work in progress. The interplay between chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery is under constant rearrangement and refinement. Through this all, the desire to preserve the anal sphincters and quality of life remains at the forefront. In the past decade, standard of care for stage II or III rectal cancers in the USA has been neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) followed by radical surgical resection of the rectum. While timing and sequence of the CRT continues to evolve, surgical resection has remained essential in treatment. This stands in contrast to anal cancer, where surgery is reserved purely for salvage. This article describes a treatment strategy that attempts to treat rectal adenocarcinoma with CRT alone, reserving surgery for failure or salvage. Of the studies performed to date, a number are methodologically sound and show promise. However, the body of evidence has yet to reach a size to sway practitioners from the established trinity of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery. Interestingly, few trials administer post treatment full-dose systemic chemotherapy, which is the standard of care in patients undergoing surgical resection. Better identification of patients that will have complete cure from this approach, combined with long-term outcome data on salvage patients, is necessary for this therapy to be universally embraced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]