International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Clinical InvestigationLocal Recurrence After Complete Clinical Response and Watch and Wait in Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation: Impact of Salvage Therapy on Local Disease Control
Introduction
Up to 42% of patients with distal rectal cancer may experience a complete pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME) (1). These patients seem to have improved oncologic outcomes (2). However, these results after TME are at the cost of significant postoperative morbidity, including long-term urinary, sexual, and fecal continence dysfunction and the frequent need for temporary or definitive stomas. In this setting, alternative treatment strategies have been suggested to avoid major postoperative complications and still maintain optimal oncologic results (3). These strategies include full-thickness local excision (FTLE) or no immediate surgery (also known as the Watch and Wait strategy).
Full-thickness local excision may provide the advantage of allowing pathologic assessment of the primary tumor 4, 5. However, even though the risk of sexual, urinary, and fecal incontinence is minimal, postoperative morbidity, including wound dehiscence, is significantly higher after CRT 6, 7. Another alternative treatment strategy with no immediate resection and observation has been suggested for patients with complete clinical response (cCR) (8). This alternative has the advantages of an organ-sparing strategy, with even lower morbidity or functional consequences (9). However, it requires identification of patients with cCR who are likely to have a complete pathologic response (10). Still, these patients with cCR have the potential risk for harboring microscopic residual disease within both the rectal wall and the mesorectal nodes and therefore remain at risk for the development of local recurrence (11).
In this setting, a proportion of patients undergoing observation and no immediate surgery after a cCR (or Watch and Wait strategy) may experience local recurrence and ultimately require a salvage procedure. Ideally, the use of any organ-sparing treatment strategy without radical surgery would allow salvage resection for the majority of local recurrences with no oncologic compromise. The aim of the study was to review local recurrence, salvage rates, and oncologic outcomes among patients with cCR treated without immediate surgery and the impact of salvage on local disease control. In previous studies, cCR was considered for patients with at least 12 months of follow-up who showed no evidence of tumor regrowth. In the present study, all recurrences (including early regrowths within the initial 12 months of follow-up) were considered to enable understanding of the role and impact of salvage resection on local disease control after no immediate surgery after an initial cCR.
Section snippets
Methods and Materials
Between 1991 and 2011, consecutive patients from a single institution (Angelita & Joaquim Gama Institute) were assessed before neoadjuvant CRT by a single surgeon and underwent full physical examination, digital rectal examination, and rigid proctoscopy. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels were obtained for all patients (8). Radiologic staging included chest and abdominopelvic computed tomographic (CT) scans, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and/or endorectal ultrasonography (ERUS)
Results
Between 1991 and 2011, 183 patients with distal rectal cancer underwent neoadjuvant CRT at the Angelita & Joaquim Gama Institute. After assessment of response at least 8 weeks after completion of CRT, 90 patients were considered to have initial cCR (49%) and were referred to no immediate surgery (Watch and Wait). The baseline features of patients with initial cCR are available in Table 1. The median follow-up time was 60 months (range, 12-233 months). Loss to follow-up was considered for any
Discussion
The treatment of patients with cCR after neoadjuvant CRT remains controversial. The use of alternative treatment strategies without radical surgery is desirable to avoid the significant postoperative morbidity, need for intestinal stomas, and functional disorders (mainly anorectal, sexual, and urinary) associated with surgery. Surveillance without any immediate surgery (Watch and Wait) avoids postoperative complications and minimizes the risk of adverse functional outcomes in patients with
References (17)
- et al.
Chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: An updated analysis of factors affecting pathological response
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)
(2008) - et al.
Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: A pooled analysis of individual patient data
Lancet Oncol
(2010) - et al.
Prediction of mesorectal nodal metastases after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: Results of a randomised trial: Implication for subsequent local excision
Radiother Oncol
(2005) - et al.
Rectum-conserving surgery in the era of chemoradiotherapy
Br J Surg
(2010) - et al.
Can pathological complete response in the primary tumour following pre-operative pelvic chemoradiotherapy for T3-T4 rectal cancer predict for sterilisation of pelvic lymph nodes, a low risk of local recurrence and the appropriateness of local excision?
Int J Colorectal Dis
(2006) - et al.
A phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and local excision for T2N0 rectal cancer: Preliminary results of the ACOSOG Z6041 trial
Ann Surg Oncol
(2012) - et al.
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal cancer: Comparison of wound complication rates with and without neoadjuvant radiation therapy
Surg Endosc
(2009) - et al.
Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for residual rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy is associated with significant immediate pain and hospital readmission rates
Dis Colon Rectum
(2011)
Cited by (0)
Conflict of interest: none.