Chemoradiation, Consolidation Chemotherapy, and Watch and Wait for Early Rectal Cancer.

As watch and wait has become an attractive management alternative among patients with rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation, the focus of organ preservation has now shifted toward the use of this approach in patients with early rectal cancer. These patients would otherwise be treated without the use of neoadjuvant therapy for oncological reasons. The sole purpose of any neoadjuvant treatment here would be the achievement of a complete clinical response in an attempt to avoid total mesorectal excision. This has become particularly interesting after the incorporation of total neoadjuvant therapy regimens. These regimens have resulted in significantly higher rates of complete tumor regression and therefore become an interesting alternative among early rectal cancer patients where organ preservation is desired. The present review provides an overview of the currently available evidence and the preliminary experience with this rather controversial approach.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.