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.

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.

Transanal Local Excision of Rectal Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: Is There a Place for It or Should Be Avoided at All Costs?

Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) with tumor downsizing and downstaging has significantly impacted the number of patients considered to be appropriate candidates for transanal local excision (TLE). Some patients may harbor small residual lesions, restricted to the bowel wall. These patients, who exhibit major response ("near-complete") by digital rectal examination, endoscopic assessment, and radiological assessment may be considered for this approach. Although TLE is associated with minimal postoperative morbidity, a few clinical consequences and oncological outcomes must be evaluated in advance and with caution. In the setting of nCRT, a higher risk for clinically relevant wound dehiscences leading to a considerable risk for readmission for pain management has been observed. Worse anorectal function (still better than after total mesorectal excision [TME]), worsening in the quality of TME specimen, and higher rates of abdominal resections (in cases requiring completion TME) have been reported. The exuberant scar observed in the area of TLE also represents a challenging finding during follow-up of these patients. Local excision should be probably restricted for patients with primary tumors located at or below the level of the anorectal ring (magnetic resonance defined). These patients are otherwise candidates for abdominal perineal resections or ultra-low anterior resections with coloanal anastomosis frequently requiring definitive stomas or considerably poor anorectal function.

Localized Well-Differentiated Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors - Where Are We in 2021?

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are slow-growing malignancies with distinct biologic and clinical characteristics. Most rectal-NETs are localized and well-differentiated, usually carrying an excellent prognosis. In this review, we aim at describing the epidemiology, clinical characteristics and therapeutic approaches for well-differentiated rectal NETs.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery and discharge within 24 h-who is at risk for readmission?

AIM: The aim was to describe risk factors for hospital readmission in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal procedures and being discharged in ≤24 h. METHOD: All consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery between 2010 and 2019 from a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were included in an enhanced recovery programme. Patients who met criteria for hospital discharge were compared according to the need for readmission in a 45-day follow-up. RESULTS: In all, 664 patients underwent minimally invasive colorectal surgery during the study period and 237 (35.7%) were discharged in ≤24 h. Readmission was required in 16 (6.8%) patients discharged in ≤24 h and no postoperative mortality was observed in this group. Patients discharged in ≤24 h were more likely to have benign disease (P < 0.001), fewer associated procedures (P < 0.025) and intracorporeal anastomoses (P < 0.001). The type of surgical procedure (abdominoperineal resection), low rectal tumour, malignant disease, older age and longer operating time were associated with readmission. Age (OR 1.06; P = 0.037), malignant disease (OR 4.39; P = 0.05) and operating time (OR 1.03; P < 0.001) were identified as independent predictive factors for readmission amongst patients being discharged in ≤24 h. CONCLUSION: Highly selected patients undergoing minimally invasive procedures in colorectal surgery may be safely discharged within 24 h following the procedure. High-risk features for readmission include older age, malignant disease and longer operating time.

Role of Simulation-Based Training in Minimally Invasive and Robotic Colorectal Surgery.

Properly performing minimally invasive colorectal procedures requires specific skills. With a focus on patient safety, the training of surgeons on patients is only accepted under exceptionally controlled, expensive, and challenging conditions. Moreover, many new techniques in colorectal surgery have been developed. Therefore, undertaking minimally invasive colorectal surgery in modern times requires specific psychomotor skills that trainee surgeons must gather in less time. In addition, there are not enough proctors with sufficient expertise for such an expressive number of new different techniques likes transanal and robotic procedures. Studies that have demonstrated an improvement in minimally invasive surgery skills to the actual operating room in general surgery and a stepwise approach to surgical simulation with a combination of various training methods appears to be useful in colorectal surgery training programs. However, the scientific evidence on the transfer of skills specifically for colorectal surgery is extremely scarce and very variable. Thus, the evaluation of the results remains quite difficult. In this review, we present the best available evidence on the types of training based on simulation, their characteristics, advantages and disadvantages, and finally the results available on their adoption. Nevertheless, scientific evidence about the benefit of simulation training in minimally invasive colorectal surgery is limited and there is a need to build more robust evidence.

Treatment of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection: The TENTACLE-Rectum study.

AIM: Anastomotic leakage is a severe complication after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer and occurs in up to 20% of patients. Most research focuses on reducing its incidence and finding predictive factors for anastomotic leakage. There are no robust data on severity and treatment strategies with associated outcomes. The aims of this work were (1) to investigate the factors that contribute to severity of anastomotic leakage and to compose an anastomotic leakage severity score and (2) to evaluate the effects of different treatment approaches on prespecified outcome parameters, stratified for severity score and other leakage characteristics. METHOD: TENTACLE-Rectum is an international multicentre retrospective cohort study. Patients with anastomotic leakage after LAR for primary rectal cancer between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 will be included by each centre. We aim to include 1246 patients in this study. The primary outcome is 1-year stoma-free survival (i.e. patients alive at 1 year without a stoma). Secondary outcomes include number of reinterventions and unplanned readmissions within 1 year, total length of hospital stay, total time with a stoma, the type of stoma present at 1 year (defunctioning, permanent), complications related to secondary leakage and mortality. For aim (1) regression models will be used to create an anastomotic leakage severity score. For aim (2) the effectiveness of different treatment strategies for leakage will be tested after correction for severity score and leakage characteristics, in addition to other potential related confounders. CONCLUSION: TENTACLE-Rectum will be an important step towards drawing up evidence-based recommendations and improving outcomes for patients who experience severe treatment-related morbidity.

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.

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.

Metformin as an Alternative Radiosensitizing Agent to 5-Fluorouracil During Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer combining 5-fluorouracil with radiation increases tumor regression compared with radiation alone. However, it occurs at the cost of significant treatment-related toxicity. Patients with rectal cancer using metformin have been associated with improved response to radiotherapy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiosensitizing effects of metformin in vitro and in vivo and compare it with a standard combination of radiation/5-fluorouracil. DESIGN: Colorectal cancer cell lines SW480, HT29, and HCT116 were used as models. Cell viability was compared under treatments with radiation, radiation/5-fluorouracil, metformin, radiation/metformin, and radiation/5-fluorouracil/metformin. Nude mice were injected subcutaneously with SW480 cells and treated for 1 week with radiation/5-fluorouracil, metformin, radiation/metformin, or radiation/5-fluorouracil/metformin. Tumor volume was evaluated for 4 weeks after treatment completion. The phosphorylation status of key proteins of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway was determined by immunoblots. SETTINGS: This was an experimental study conducted in vitro and in vivo. PATIENTS: Animal models/cell lines were used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The end point was to investigate how metformin compares with 5-fluorouracil as a radiosensitizer. RESULTS: All cell lines significantly decreased cell viability after treatment with radiation/metformin when compared with radiation alone. Radiation/metformin was superior to radiation/5-fluorouracil in SW480 (37% vs 74%; p < 0.001). In HT29 and in HCT116, radiation/metformin was inferior to radiation/5-fluorouracil (40.0% vs 13.8%, p < 0.001 and 40.0% vs 7.0%, p < 0.001), mainly because of increased 5-fluorouracil toxicity (≤20% of cell viability). In vivo assays indicated that radiation/metformin treatment was comparable with radiation/5-fluorouracil (557 vs 398 mm; p > 0.05) and that the addition of metformin to the standard radiation/5-fluorouracil did not improve tumor response (349 mm; p > 0.05). Metformin exerted strong PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway inactivation effects after 24-hour exposure (increasing pAMPK, p < 0.01; decreasing pAkt, p < 0.01; and pS6, p <0.05). LIMITATIONS: In vitro and in vivo chemoradiation regimens cannot be directly translated to human delivery methods. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin enhances tumor response to radiation in vitro and in vivo. Metformin is an attractive alternative radiosensitizing agent to be considered in future studies/trials. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B219. LA METFORMINA COMO AGENTE RADIOSENSIBILIZADOR ALTERNATIVO A 5FU DURANTE EL TRATAMIENTO NEOADYUVANTE PARA CÁNCER DE RECTO: La quimiorradiación neoadyuvante para el cáncer de recto localmente avanzado que combina 5FU con radiación aumenta la regresión tumoral en comparación con la radiación sola. Sin embargo, se produce a costa de una toxicidad significativa relacionada con el tratamiento. Los pacientes con cáncer de recto que usan metformina se han asociado con una mejor respuesta a la radioterapia.Evaluar los efectos radiosensibilizantes de metformina in vitro e in vivo y compararlo con la combinación estándar de radiación / 5FU.Se usaron como modelos las líneas celulares de cáncer colorrectal SW480, HT29 y HCT116. La viabilidad celular se comparó en tratamientos con radiación, radiación / 5FU, metformina, radiación / metformina y radiación / 5FU / metformina. A los ratones desnudos se les inyectó por vía subcutánea células SW480 y fueron tratados durante una semana con radiación / 5FU, metformina, radiación / metformina o radiación / 5FU / metformina. El volumen tumoral se evaluó durante 4 semanas después de la finalización del tratamiento. El estado de fosforilación de las proteínas clave de la vía PI3K / Akt / mTOR se determinó mediante inmunotransferencias.Estudio experimental in vitro e in vivo.Modelo animal / líneas celulares.El punto final fue investigar cómo la metformina se compara con 5FU como un radiosensibilizador.Todas las líneas celulares disminuyeron significativamente la viabilidad celular después del tratamiento con radiación / metformina en comparación con la radiación sola. La radiación / metformina fue superior a la radiación / 5FU en SW480 (37% frente a 74%; p <0,001). En el HT29 y el HCT116 la radiación / metformina fue inferior a la radiación / 5FU (40% vs 13.8%, p <0.001 y 40% vs 7%, p <0.001; respectivamente), debido principalmente al aumento de la toxicidad de 5FU (≤20% de la célula viabilidad). Los ensayos in vivo indicaron que el tratamiento con radiación / metformina era comparable a la radiación / 5FU (557 vs 398 mm, p > 0.05), y que la adición de metformina a la radiación estándar / 5FU no mejoró la respuesta tumoral (349 mm, p > 0.05). La metformina ejerció fuertes efectos de inactivación de la vía PI3K / Akt / mTOR después de 24 horas de exposición (aumentando pAMPK p < 0.01, disminuyendo pAkt, p < 0.01; y pS6, p < 0.05).Los regímenes de CRT in vitro e in vivo no se pueden traducir directamente a los métodos de entrega en humanos.La metformina mejora la respuesta tumoral a la radiación in vitro e in vivo. La metformina es un agente alternativo de radiosensibilización atractivo para ser considerado en futuros estudios / ensayos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B219. (Traducción-Dr Gonzalo Hagerman).