Milou H Martens1, Monique Maas1, Luc A Heijnen1, Doenja M J Lambregts1, Jeroen W A Leijtens1, Laurents P S Stassen1, Stephanie O Breukink1, Christiaan Hoff1, Eric J Belgers1, Jarno Melenhorst1, Rob Jansen1, Jeroen Buijsen1, Ton G M Hoofwijk1, Regina G H Beets-Tan1, Geerard L Beets2. 1. Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB). 2. Department of Surgery (MHM, LAH, LPSS, SOB, JM), Department of Radiology (MHM, MM, LAH, DMJL), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology (MHM, LAH, JB, RGHBT, GLB), and Department of Medical Oncology (RJ), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands (JWAL); Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands (CH); Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen and Heerlen, the Netherlands (EJB, TGMH); Department of Radiotherapy, Maastro Radiation Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands (JB); Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (MM, DMJL, RGHBT); Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (GLB) g.beets@nki.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to establish the oncological and functional results of organ preservation with a watch-and-wait approach (W&W) and selective transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) in patients with a clinical complete or near-complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2014, organ preservation was offered if response assessment with digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and MRI showed (near) cCR. Watch-and-wait was offered for cCR, and two options were offered for near cCR: TEM or reassessment after three months. Follow-up included endoscopy and MRIs every three months during the first year, and every six months thereafter. Long-term outcome was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Functional outcome was assessed with colostomy-free survival and Vaizey incontinence score (0 = perfect continence, 24 = totally incontinent). RESULTS: One hundred patients were included, with median follow-up of 41.1 months. Sixty-one had cCR at initial response assessment. Thirty-nine had near cCR, of whom 24 developed cCR at the second assessment and 15 patients underwent TEM (9 ypT0, 1 ypT1, 5 ypT2). Fifteen patients developed a local regrowth (12 luminal, 3 nodal), all salvageable and within 25 months. Five patients developed metastases, and five patients died. Three-year overall survival was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 89.9% to 98.9%), distant metastasis-free survival was 96.8% (95% CI = 90.4% to 99.0%), local regrowth-free survival was 84.6% (95% CI = 75.8% to 90.5%), and disease-free survival was 80.6% (95% CI = 70.9% to 87.4%). Colostomy-free survival was 94.8% (95% CI = 88.0% to 97.8%), with a good continence after watch-and-wait (Vaizey = 3.4, SD = 3.9) and moderate after TEM (Vaizey = 9.7, SD = 5.1). CONCLUSIONS: Organ preservation appears oncologically safe for selected rectal cancer patients with a cCR or near cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation when applying strict selection criteria and frequent follow-up, including endoscopy and MRI. The low colostomy rate and the good long-term functional outcome warrant discussing this option with the patient as an alternative to major surgery.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to establish the oncological and functional results of organ preservation with a watch-and-wait approach (W&W) and selective transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) in patients with a clinical complete or near-complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancer. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2014, organ preservation was offered if response assessment with digital rectal examination, endoscopy, and MRI showed (near) cCR. Watch-and-wait was offered for cCR, and two options were offered for near cCR: TEM or reassessment after three months. Follow-up included endoscopy and MRIs every three months during the first year, and every six months thereafter. Long-term outcome was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Functional outcome was assessed with colostomy-free survival and Vaizey incontinence score (0 = perfect continence, 24 = totally incontinent). RESULTS: One hundred patients were included, with median follow-up of 41.1 months. Sixty-one had cCR at initial response assessment. Thirty-nine had near cCR, of whom 24 developed cCR at the second assessment and 15 patients underwent TEM (9 ypT0, 1 ypT1, 5 ypT2). Fifteen patients developed a local regrowth (12 luminal, 3 nodal), all salvageable and within 25 months. Five patients developed metastases, and five patients died. Three-year overall survival was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 89.9% to 98.9%), distant metastasis-free survival was 96.8% (95% CI = 90.4% to 99.0%), local regrowth-free survival was 84.6% (95% CI = 75.8% to 90.5%), and disease-free survival was 80.6% (95% CI = 70.9% to 87.4%). Colostomy-free survival was 94.8% (95% CI = 88.0% to 97.8%), with a good continence after watch-and-wait (Vaizey = 3.4, SD = 3.9) and moderate after TEM (Vaizey = 9.7, SD = 5.1). CONCLUSIONS: Organ preservation appears oncologically safe for selected rectal cancerpatients with a cCR or near cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation when applying strict selection criteria and frequent follow-up, including endoscopy and MRI. The low colostomy rate and the good long-term functional outcome warrant discussing this option with the patient as an alternative to major surgery.
Authors: Doenja M J Lambregts; Miriam M van Heeswijk; Andrea Delli Pizzi; Saskia G C van Elderen; Luisa Andrade; Nicky H G M Peters; Peter A M Kint; Margreet Osinga-de Jong; Shandra Bipat; Rik Ooms; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Geerard L Beets; Frans C H Bakers; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C A Kim; S Ahmed; S Ahmed; B Brunet; H Chalchal; R Deobald; C Doll; M P Dupre; V Gordon; R M Lee-Ying; H Lim; D Liu; J M Loree; J P McGhie; K Mulder; J Park; B Yip; R P Wong; A Zaidi Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: A Barina; A De Paoli; P Delrio; M Guerrieri; A Muratore; F Bianco; D Vespa; C Asteria; E Morpurgo; A Restivo; C Coco; U Pace; C Belluco; C Aschele; S Lonardi; V Valentini; G Mantello; I Maretto; P Del Bianco; A Perin; S Pucciarelli Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Steven N Seyedin; M M Hasibuzzaman; Vivan Pham; Michael S Petronek; Cameron Callaghan; Amanda L Kalen; Kranti A Mapuskar; Sarah L Mott; Douglas R Spitz; Bryan G Allen; Joseph M Caster Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038