J On1, J Shim2, E H Aly1. 1. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery and Training Unit, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK. 2. Epidemiology Group, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The 'watch and wait' approach has recently emerged as an alternative approach for managing patients with complete clinical response in rectal cancer. However, less is understood whether the intervention is associated with a favourable outcome among patients who require salvage therapy following local recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search was performed using EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, Journals@Ovid as well as hand searches; published between 2004 and 2018, to identify studies where outcomes of patients undergoing watch and wait were compared with conventional surgery. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. The main outcome was relative risks for overall and disease specific mortality in salvage therapy. RESULTS: Nine eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Of 248 patients who followed the watch and wait strategy, 10.5% had salvage therapy for recurrent disease. No statistical heterogeneity was found in the results. The relative risk of overall mortality in the salvage therapy group was 2.42 (95% confidence interval 0.96-6.13) compared with the group who had conventional surgery, but this was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The relative risk of disease specific mortality in salvage therapy was 2.63 (95% confidence interval 0.81-8.53). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated that there was no significant difference in overall and disease specific mortality in patients who had salvage treatment following recurrence of disease in the watch and wait group compared with the standard treatment group. However, future research into the oncological safety of salvage treatment is needed.
INTRODUCTION: The 'watch and wait' approach has recently emerged as an alternative approach for managing patients with complete clinical response in rectal cancer. However, less is understood whether the intervention is associated with a favourable outcome among patients who require salvage therapy following local recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search was performed using EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, Journals@Ovid as well as hand searches; published between 2004 and 2018, to identify studies where outcomes of patients undergoing watch and wait were compared with conventional surgery. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. The main outcome was relative risks for overall and disease specific mortality in salvage therapy. RESULTS: Nine eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Of 248 patients who followed the watch and wait strategy, 10.5% had salvage therapy for recurrent disease. No statistical heterogeneity was found in the results. The relative risk of overall mortality in the salvage therapy group was 2.42 (95% confidence interval 0.96-6.13) compared with the group who had conventional surgery, but this was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The relative risk of disease specific mortality in salvage therapy was 2.63 (95% confidence interval 0.81-8.53). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated that there was no significant difference in overall and disease specific mortality in patients who had salvage treatment following recurrence of disease in the watch and wait group compared with the standard treatment group. However, future research into the oncological safety of salvage treatment is needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Non-operative management; Rectal cancer; Salvage treatment; Watch and wait
Authors: Ane L Appelt; John Pløen; Henrik Harling; Frank S Jensen; Lars H Jensen; Jens C R Jørgensen; Jan Lindebjerg; Søren R Rafaelsen; Anders Jakobsen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-07-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: James D Smith; Jeannine A Ruby; Karyn A Goodman; Leonard B Saltz; José G Guillem; Martin R Weiser; Larissa K Temple; Garrett M Nash; Philip B Paty Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: T W A Koedam; G H van Ramshorst; C L Deijen; A K E Elfrink; W J H J Meijerink; H J Bonjer; C Sietses; J B Tuynman Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-01-02 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Fernando López-Campos; Margarita Martín-Martín; Roberto Fornell-Pérez; Juan Carlos García-Pérez; Javier Die-Trill; Raquel Fuentes-Mateos; Sergio López-Durán; José Domínguez-Rullán; Reyes Ferreiro; Alejandro Riquelme-Oliveira; Asunción Hervás-Morón; Felipe Couñago Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 5.742