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.

Local Regrowth and the Risk of Distant Metastases Among Patients Undergoing Watch-and-Wait for Rectal Cancer: What Is the Best Control Group? Multicenter Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of rectal cancer patients who achieve a clinical complete response may develop local regrowth. Although salvage appears to provide appropriate local control, the risk of distant metastases is less known. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of distant metastases between patients who achieve a clinical complete response (watch-and-wait strategy) and subsequent local regrowth and patients managed by surgery after chemoradiation. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter cohort study. SETTINGS: This study used data of patients from 3 institutions who were treated between 1993 and 2019. PATIENTS: Patients with initial clinical complete response (after neoadjuvant therapy) followed by local regrowth and patients with near-complete pathological response (≤10%) after straightforward surgery after chemoradiation were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for distant metastases. Kaplan-Meier curves were created (log-rank test) to compare survival outcomes. Analyses were performed using time zero as last day of radiation therapy or as date of salvage resection in the local regrowth group. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 79 patients with local regrowth developed distant metastases, whereas only 10 of 74 after upfront total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy ( p = 0.04). Local regrowth and final pathology (ypT3-4) were the only independent risk factors associated with distant metastases. When using date of salvage resection as time zero, distant metastases-free survival rates were significantly inferior for patients with local regrowth (70% vs 86%; p = 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Small number of patients, many neoadjuvant therapies, and selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing watch-and-wait strategy who develop local regrowth are at higher risk for development of distant metastases compared to patients with near-complete pathological response managed by upfront surgery after chemoradiation. See Video Abstract. NUEVO CRECIMIENTO LOCAL Y EL RIESGO DE METSTASIS A DISTANCIA ENTRE PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A OBSERVACIN Y ESPERA POR CNCER DE RECTO CUL ES EL MEJOR GRUPO DE CONTROL ESTUDIO RETROSPECTIVO MUTICNTRICO: ANTECEDENTES:Una proporción de pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local. Si bien el rescate parece proporcionar un control local apropiado, el riesgo de metástasis a distancia es menos conocido.OBJETIVO:Comparar el riesgo de metástasis a distancia entre los pacientes que logran una respuesta clínica completa (estrategia de observación y espera) y el nuevo crecimiento local posterior con los pacientes tratados con cirugía después de la quimiorradiación.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte multicéntrico retrospectivo.CONFIGURACIÓN:Este estudio utilizó datos de pacientes de 3 instituciones que fueron tratados entre 1993 y 2019.PACIENTES:Pacientes con respuesta clínica completa inicial (después de la terapia neoadyuvante) seguida de crecimiento local nuevo y pacientes con respuesta patológica casi completa (≤10 %) después de cirugía directa después de quimiorradiación.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se realizó un análisis univariante/multivariante para identificar los factores de riesgo de metástasis a distancia. Se crearon curvas de Kaplan-Meier (prueba de rango logarítmico) para comparar los resultados de supervivencia. El análisis se realizó utilizando el tiempo cero como último día de radioterapia (1) o como fecha de resección de rescate (2) en el grupo de recrecimiento local.RESULTADOS:Veintiuno de 79 pacientes con recrecimiento local desarrollaron metástasis a distancia, mientras que solo 10 de 74 después de una cirugía sencilla (p = 0,04). El recrecimiento local y la patología final (ypT3-4) fueron los únicos factores de riesgo independientes asociados con las metástasis a distancia. Cuando se utilizó la fecha de la resección de rescate como tiempo cero, las tasas de supervivencia sin metástasis a distancia fueron significativamente inferiores para los pacientes con recrecimiento local (70 frente a 86 %; p = 0,01).LIMITACIONES:Pequeño número de pacientes, muchas terapias neoadyuvantes, sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes sometidos a observación y espera que desarrollan un nuevo crecimiento local tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar metástasis a distancia en comparación con los pacientes con una respuesta patológica casi completa manejados con cirugía por adelantado después de la quimiorradiación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial investigating Consolidation Chemotherapy with and without oxaliplatin in distal rectal cancer and Watch & Wait.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation(nCRT) has been considered the preferred initial treatment strategy for distal rectal cancer. Advantages of this approach include improved local control after radical surgery but also the opportunity for organ preserving strategies (Watch and Wait-WW). Consolidation chemotherapy(cCT) regimens using fluoropyrimidine-based with or without oxalipatin following nCRT have demonstrated to increase complete response and organ preservation rates among these patients. However, the benefit of adding oxaliplatin to cCT compared to fluoropirimidine alone regimens in terms of primary tumor response remains unclear. Since oxalipatin-treatment may be associated with considerable toxicity, it becomes imperative to understand the benefit of its incorporation into standard cCT regimens in terms of primary tumor response. The aim of the present trial is to compare the outcomes of 2 different cCT regimens following nCRT (fluoropyrimidine-alone versus fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin) for patients with distal rectal cancer. METHODS: In this multi-centre study, patients with magnetic resonance-defined distal rectal tumors will be randomized on a 1:1 ratio to receive long-course chemoradiation (54 Gy) followed by cCT with fluoropyrimidine alone versus fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin. Magnetic resonance(MR) will be analyzed centrally prior to patient inclusion and randomization. mrT2-3N0-1 tumor located no more than 1 cm above the anorectal ring determined by sagittal views on MR will be eligible for the study. Tumor response will be assessed after 12 weeks from radiotherapy(RT) completion. Patients with clinical complete response (clinical, endoscopic and radiological) may be enrolled in an organ-preservation program(WW). The primary endpoint of this trial is decision to organ-preservation surveillance (WW) at 18 weeks from RT completion. Secondary endpoints are 3-year surgery-free survival, TME-free survival, distant metastases-free survival, local regrowth-free survival and colostomy-free survival. DISCUSSION: Long-course nCRT with cCT is associated with improved complete response rates and may be a very attractive alternative to increase the chances for organ-preservation strategies. Fluoropyrimidine-based cCT with or without oxaliplatin has never been investigated in the setting of a randomized trial to compare clinical response rates and the possibility of organ-preservation. The outcomes of this study may significantly impact clinical practice of patients with distal rectal cancer interested in organ-preservation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT05000697; registered on August 11th, 2021.

Watch and Wait Approach for Rectal Cancer.

The administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by total mesorrectal excision (TME) and selective use of adjuvant chemotherapy can still be considered the standard of care in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, avoiding sequelae of TME and entering a narrow follow-up program of watch and wait (W&W), in select cases that achieve a comparable clinical complete response (cCR) to nCRT, is now very attractive to both patients and clinicians. Many advances based on well-designed studies and long-term data coming from big multicenter cohorts have drawn some important conclusions and warnings regarding this strategy. In order to safely implement W&W, it is important consider proper selection of cases, best treatment options, surveillance strategy and the attitudes towards near complete responses or even tumor regrowth. The present review offers a comprehensive overview of W&W strategy from its origins to the most current literature, from a practical point of view focused on daily clinical practice, without losing sight of the most important future prospects in this area.

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.

Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer: The Watch and Wait Strategy.

In recent decades, rectal cancer management has become increasingly challenging for multiple reasons. Proper imaging using dedicated magnetic resonance, standardization of total mesorectal excision, and incorporation of neoadjuvant treatment regimens have contributed to a significant decrease in local recurrence rates. The observation of complete tumor response to radiation or chemoradiation led to the proposal of organ-preservation strategies with avoidance of immediate surgery and close surveillance (Watch and Wait strategy) in selected patients. The purpose of this article is to review the current evidence related to the selection criteria and outcomes in patients enrolled in this Watch and Wait strategy.

The "Immunoscore" in rectal cancer: could we search quality beyond quantity of life?

Because of the function and anatomical environment of the rectum, therapeutic strategies for local advanced rectal cancer (LARC) must deal with two challenging stressors that are a high-risk of local and distal recurrences and a high-risk of poor quality of life (QoL). Over the last three decades, advances in screening tests, therapies, and combined-modality treatment options and strategies have improved the prognosis of patients with LARC. However, owing to the heterogeneous nature of LARC and genetic status, the patient may not respond to a specific therapy and may be at increased risk of side-effects without the life-prolonging benefit. Indeed, each therapy can cause its own side-effects, which may worsen by a combination of treatments resulting in long-term poor QoL. In LARC, QoL has become even more essential with the increasing incidence of rectal cancer in young individuals. Herein, we analyzed the value of the Immunoscore-Biopsy (performed on tumor biopsy at diagnosis) in predicting outcomes, alone or in association with clinical and imaging data, for each therapy used in LARC.

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.

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.

Nonoperative Management for T2 Low Rectal Cancer: A Western Approach.

The possibility of organ preservation in early rectal cancer has gained popularity during recent years. Patients with early tumor stage and low risk for local recurrence do not usually require neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oncological reasons. However, these patients may be considered for chemoradiation exclusively for the purpose of achieving a complete clinical response and avoid total mesorectal excision. In addition, cT2 tumors may be more likely to develop complete response to neoadjuvant therapy and may constitute ideal candidates for organ-preserving strategies. In the setting where the use of chemoradiation is exclusively used to avoid major surgery, one should consider maximizing tumor response. In this article, we will focus on the rationale, indications, and outcomes of patients with early rectal cancer being treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiation to achieve organ preservation by avoiding total mesorectal excision.

A Diagnostic Biopsy-Adapted Immunoscore Predicts Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment and Selects Patients with Rectal Cancer Eligible for a Watch-and-Wait Strategy.

PURPOSE: No biomarker to personalize treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is currently available. We assessed in LARC whether a diagnostic biopsy-adapted immunoscore (ISB) could predict response to neoadjuvant treatment (nT) and better define patients eligible to an organ preservation strategy ("Watch-and-Wait"). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Biopsies from two independent cohorts (n 1 = 131, n 2 = 118) of patients with LARC treated with nT followed by radical surgery were immunostained for CD3+ and CD8+ T cells and quantified by digital pathology to determine ISB. The expression of immune-related genes post-nT was investigated (n = 64 patients). Results were correlated with response to nT and disease-free survival (DFS). The ISB prognostic performance was further assessed in a multicentric cohort (n = 73 patients) treated by Watch-and-Wait. RESULTS: ISB positively correlated with the degree of histologic response (P < 0.001) and gene expression levels for Th1 orientation and cytotoxic immune response, post-nT (P = 0.006). ISB high identified patients at lower risk of relapse or death compared with ISB low [HR, 0.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.06-0.78; P = 0.009]. Prognostic performance of ISB for DFS was confirmed in a validation cohort. ISB was an independent parameter, more informative than pre- (P < 0.001) and post-nT (P < 0.05) imaging to predict DFS. ISB combined with imaging post-nT discriminated very good responders that could benefit from organ preservation strategy. In the "Watch-and-Wait" cohort (n = 73), no relapse was observed in patients with ISB high (23.3%). CONCLUSIONS: ISB predicts response to nT and survival in patients with LARC treated by surgery. Its usefulness in the selection of patients eligible for a Watch-and-Wait strategy is strongly suggested.

Salvage Surgery With Organ Preservation for Patients With Local Regrowth After Watch and Wait: Is It Still Possible?

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer who achieve complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation have been managed nonoperatively. Thirty percent of these patients may develop a local regrowth, and salvage resection with radical surgery is usually recommended. However, selected patients could be offered additional organ preservation by local excision. We hypothesized that patients with baseline T2 who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (for the specific purpose of achieving a complete clinical response) were more likely to harbor recurrent disease at an earlier stage and amenable to organ preservation strategies (local excision) when compared with T3/T4 (undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oncologic reasons). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare patients with local regrowth requiring salvage resection according to their baseline stage. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients with nonmetastatic distal rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation. SETTINGS: The study included 2 independent tertiary centers with institutional watch-and-wait organ preservation programs. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with distal rectal cancer (cT2-4N1-2M0) managed by watch and wait and local regrowth from 2 institutions were included. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Final pathologic features and surgical and oncologic outcomes were compared according to baseline staging. RESULTS: A total of 73 of 257 patients experienced local regrowth. cT2 presented similar to ypT, ypN, R0, and abdominal perineal resection rates (p > 0.05) at the time of salvage when compared with cT3 to cT4. Patients with cT2 at baseline were more likely to undergo an organ preservation procedure for salvage (56.2% vs 26.5%; p = 0.03). Overall and disease-free survival after salvage were similar between groups irrespective of the type of surgery for the regrowth. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, small sample size, and possible inaccurate baseline staging. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with baseline cT2 rectal cancer had similar pathologic stage at the time of recurrence, these patients were more likely to continue an organ preservation pathway after local regrowth through transanal local excision when compared with cT3 to cT4. Despite differences in the use of radical salvage resection, there were no differences in oncologic outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B254. CIRUGÍA DE RESCATE CON PRESERVACIÓN DE ORGANO PARA PACIENTES CON RECIDIVA LOCAL LUEGO DE WATCH & WAIT: ¿SIGUE SIENDO POSIBLE?: Los pacientes con cáncer rectal que logran una respuesta clínica completa luego de la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante han sido tratados de forma no quirúrgica. El treinta por ciento de estos pacientes pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local y generalmente se recomienda la resección de rescate con cirugía radical. Sin embargo, en pacientes seleccionados se podría ofrecer la posibilidad de preservación de órgano mediante escisión local. Se formuló la hipótesis de que los pacientes con estadio clinico inicial T2 y sometidos a terapia neoadyuvante (con el propósito específico de lograr una respuesta clínica completa) tenían más probabilidades de presentar una recurrencia local en una etapa más temprana y suceptibles de estrategias de preservación de órgano (escisión local) en comparación con T3 / T4 (sometidos a nCRT por razones oncológicas).Comparar los pacientes con recidiva local que requirieron cirugia de rescate de acuerdo con su estadio inicial.Revisión retrospectiva de pacientes consecutivos con cáncer de recto distal no metastásico sometidos a quimiorradiación neoadyuvante.Dos centros terciarios independientes con programas institucionales de preservación de órgano - Watch & Wait.Pacientes consecutivos con cáncer rectal distal (cT2-4N1-2M0) manejados por Watch & Wait y recidiva local.Las características patológicas finales, los resultados quirúrgicos y oncológicos se compararon de acuerdo con la estadificación inicial.Un total de 73 de 257 pacientes presentaron recidiva local. cT2 presentaron similares ypT, ypN, R0 y tasas de resección abdominoperineal (p>0,05) en el momento del rescate en comparación con cT3-4.Los pacientes con cT2 de base tuvieron más probabilidades de someterse a un procedimiento de preservación de órgano durante el rescate (56,2% frente a 26,5%; p = 0,03). Supervivencia general y DFS después del rescate fueron similares entre los grupos, independientemente del tipo de cirugía para la recidiva.Estudio retrospectivo, tamaño de muestra pequeño, la posible estadificación basal inexacta.Aunque los pacientes con cáncer rectal cT2 de base presentaron estadio patologico similar en el momento de la recidiva, estos pacientes tuvieron más probabilidades de continuar una vía de preservación de órgano luego de una recidiva local a través de la escisión local transanal en comparación con cT3-4. A pesar de las diferencias en el uso de la resección radical de rescate, no hubo diferencias en los resultados oncológicos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B254.

Controversies in Rectal Cancer Treatment and Management.

Incorporation of new treatment modalities has significantly increased the complexity of the treatment and management of rectal cancer, including perioperative therapy for local advanced disease and organ preservation for those with response to the preoperative treatment. This review may help practitioners better understand the rationale and selection.

Conditional Survival in Patients With Rectal Cancer and Complete Clinical Response Managed by Watch and Wait After Chemoradiation: Recurrence Risk Over Time.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze conditional recurrence-free survival (cRFS) for rectal cancer patients with complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) managed nonoperatively after each year without recurrence. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Select patients with cCR after nCRT have been managed nonoperatively. Risk factors for local recurrence, the need for prolonged follow-up, and the risk of recurrence over time are not well defined. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients with rectal cancer cT2-4N0-2M0 treated with nCRT. Mean follow-up was 64 months. Patients who achieved cCR were managed nonoperatively. cRFS was used to investigate the evolution of recurrence-odds, as patients remain recurrence-free after completion of nCRT. Three-year cRFS was estimated at "x" years after completion of nCRT based on the formula cRFS3 = RFS(x+3)/RFS(x). RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven patients with cCR after nCRT were included. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 5 years were 81.9% (95% CI 74.0%-87.6%) and 60.4% (95% CI 52.5%-67.4%) respectively. Using cRFS estimates, the probability of remaining disease-free for an additional 3 years if the patient survived without disease at 1, 3, and 5 years, was 77.4% (95% CI 68.8%-83.8%), 91.0% (95% CI 81.9%-95.7%), and 94.3% (95% CI 82.9%-98.2%), respectively. In contrast, actuarial RFS rates for similar intervals were 79.1% (95% CI 72.5%-84.2%), 64.2% (95% CI 56.5%-70.8%), and 60.4% (95% CI 52.5%-67.4%). After 2 years disease-free, 3 year cRFS became similar for T2 and T3 cancers. In contrast, patients undergoing extended nCRT became less likely to develop recurrences only after initial 2 years of successful organ-preservation. CONCLUSIONS: Conditional survival suggests that patients have significantly lower risks (≤10%) of developing recurrences after 2 years of achieving cCR following nCRT.

Prediction of Poor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Patients With Rectal Cancer Using a DNA Repair Deregulation Score: Picking the Losers Instead of the Winners.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer may undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiation even in early stages in an attempt to achieve complete clinical response and undergo organ preservation. However, prediction of tumor response is unavailable. In this setting, accurate identification of poor responders could spare patients with early stage disease from potentially unnecessary chemoradiation. OBJECTIVE: This study focused on development/test of a score based on DNA repair gene expression to predict response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with rectal cancer. DESIGN: Pretreatment biopsy samples from patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation were collected and underwent gene expression analysis using RNA-Seq (test cohort). A score was constructed using 8 differentially expressed DNA repair genes between good (complete clinical) and poor responders (incomplete clinical) to treatment. The score was validated in 2 independent cohorts of patients undergoing similar treatment strategies and using quantitative polymerase chain reaction and microarray gene expression data. SETTINGS: This was a retrospective analysis of gene expression data from 3 independent institutions. PATIENTS: Patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4-54.0 Gy and 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy) were eligible. Patients with complete clinical response, complete pathological response, or ≤10% residual cancer cells were considered good responders. Patients with >10% residual cancer cells were considered poor responders. The test cohort included 25 patients (16 poor responders). Validation cohort 1 included 28 patients (18 poor responders), and validation cohort 2 included 46 patients (22 poor responders). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Response was correlated with the DNA repair score calculated using the expression levels of 8 DNA repair genes. DNA repair score sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were determined in test and validation cohorts. RESULTS: Poor responders had significantly lower DNA repair scores when compared with good responders across all 3 cohorts, regardless of the gene expression platform used. A low score correctly predicted poor response in 93%, 90%, and 71% in test, validation 1, and validation 2 cohorts. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its small sample size, different gene expression platforms, and treatment regimens across different cohorts used. CONCLUSIONS: A DNA repair gene score may predict patients likely to have poor response to chemoradiation. This score may be a relevant tool to be investigated in future studies focused on chemoradiation used in the context of organ preservation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B104. PREDICCIÓN DE RESPUESTA DEFICIENTE A LA RADIO-QUIMIOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE EN PACIENTES CON CÁNCER RECTAL UTILIZANDO UNA PUNTUACIÓN DE DESREGULACIÓN DE REPARACIÓN DE ADN: ESCOGER LOS PERDEDORES EN LUGAR DE LOS GANADORES: Los pacientes con cáncer rectal pueden someterse a radio-quimioterapia neoadyuvante incluso en estadios tempranos en el intento por lograr una respuesta clínica completa y permitir una preservación de órgano. Sin embargo, aun no existen herramientas disponible para la prediccion de la respuesta tumoral al tratamiento. En este contexto, la identificación precisa de los tumores con mala respuesta al tratamiento podría evitar que los pacientes con enfermedad en estadio temprano sean sometidos a radio-quimioterapia potencialmente innecesaria.Desarrollo / testeo de una puntuación basada en la expresión genes reparadores del ADN para predecir la respuesta a la nCRT en pacientes con cáncer rectal.Se recogieron muestras de biopsia de pre-tratamiento de pacientes con cáncer rectal sometidos a radio-quimioterapia neoadyuvante y se les realizó un análisis de expresión génica utilizando RNAseq (cohorte de prueba). Se construyó una puntuación utilizando 8 genes de reparación de ADN expresados diferencialmente entre buenos (respuesta clinica completa) y pobres respondedores (respuesta clinica incompleta) al tratamiento. La puntuación se validó en 2 cohortes independientes de pacientes sometidos a estrategias de tratamiento similares y utilizando qPCR y datos de expresión de genes en chips ADN (biotecnología -microarrays).Análisis retrospectivo de los datos de expresión génica de 3 instituciones independientes.Fueron incluidos aquellos pacientes con cáncer rectal sometidos a radio-quimioterapia neoadyuvante (50,4-54 Gy y quimioterapia basada en 5FU). Los pacientes con respuesta clínica completa, respuesta patológica completa o ≤10% de células cancerosas residuales se consideraron buenos respondedores. Los pacientes con> 10% de células cancerosas residuales se consideraron de respuesta deficiente. La cohorte de prueba incluyó a 25 pacientes (16 respondedores pobres). La cohorte de validación n. ° 1 incluyó a 28 pacientes (18 respondedores pobres) y la cohorte de validación n. ° 2 incluyó a 46 pacientes (22 respondedores pobres).La respuesta se correlacionó con la puntuación de reparación de ADN calculada utilizando los niveles de expresión de 8 genes de reparación de ADN. La sensibilidad del puntaje de reparación del ADN, la especificidad, los valores predictivos positivos y negativos se determinaron en las cohortes de prueba y validación.Los malos respondedores tuvieron puntuaciones de reparación de ADN significativamente más bajas en comparación con los buenos respondedores en las 3 cohortes, independientemente de la plataforma de expresión génica utilizada. Una puntuación baja predijo correctamente una respuesta pobre en el 93%, 90% y 71% en las cohortes de prueba, validación n. ° 1 y validación n. ° 2, respectivamente.Pequeño tamaño de la muestra, diferentes plataformas de expresión génica y regímenes de tratamiento en diferentes cohortes utilizadas.La puntuacion basada en genes de reparación del ADN puede predecir los pacientes con respuesta pobre a la radio-quimioterapia. Esta puntuación puede ser una herramienta relevante para investigar en futuros estudios centrados en la radio-quimioterapia utilizada en el contexto de la preservación de órganos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B104. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo and Dr. Laura Melina Fernandez).