Xuan Zhang1, Rong Ding2, JinSha Li1, Tao Wu1, ZhengHai Shen3, ShanShan Li4, Ya Zhang5, Chao Dong6, ZhongJun Shang7, Hai Zhou3, Ting Li1, GuoYu Li1, YunFeng Li8. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, No. 519, Kunzhou Road, Xishan District, 650118, Yunnan, Kunming, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Minimally Invasive Intervention, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan, Kunming, 650118, People's Republic of China. 3. Office of Cancer Center, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, 650118, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan, Kunming, 650118, People's Republic of China. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan, Kunming, 650118, People's Republic of China. 6. Department of Oncology, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan, Kunming, 650118, People's Republic of China. 7. Department of Hospital Affairs, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan, Kunming, 650118, People's Republic of China. 8. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Yunnan Cancer Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, No. 519, Kunzhou Road, Xishan District, 650118, Yunnan, Kunming, People's Republic of China. 13330445776@qq.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Watch-and-Wait (WW) approach is positioned at the cutting edge of non-invasive approach for rectal cancer patients who achieve clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical, oncologic, and survival outcomes of WW versus radical surgery (RS) and to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and possible superiority of WW. METHODS: A systematic search for studies comparing WW with RS was conducted on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. After screening for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment, statistical analysis was performed using Stata/SE14.0 software. Permanent colostomy (PC), local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), cancer-related death (CRD), 2-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using fixed effects or random-effects models depending on the heterogeneity. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with moderate-high quality involving 1254 patients were included. Of these, 513 patients were managed with WW and 741 patients were subjected to RS. Compared to RS group, WW group had higher rate of LR (odds ratio OR = 11.09, 95% confidence interval CI = 5.30-23.20, P = 0.000), 2-year OS, and 3-year OS and had lower rate of PC (OR = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.05-0.29, P = 0.000). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to DM, CRD, 2-, 3-, and 5-year DFS (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.81-1.03, P = 0.153), or 5-year OS (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.28-3.63, P = 0.988). CONCLUSION: The WW is a promising treatment approach and is a relatively safe alternative to RS for managing patients with rectal cancer who achieve cCR after nCRT. However, this modality requires rigorous screening criteria and standardized follow-up. Large-scale, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to further verify the outcomes of WW approach.
BACKGROUND: Watch-and-Wait (WW) approach is positioned at the cutting edge of non-invasive approach for rectal cancer patients who achieve clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical, oncologic, and survival outcomes of WW versus radical surgery (RS) and to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and possible superiority of WW. METHODS: A systematic search for studies comparing WW with RS was conducted on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. After screening for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment, statistical analysis was performed using Stata/SE14.0 software. Permanent colostomy (PC), local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), cancer-related death (CRD), 2-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using fixed effects or random-effects models depending on the heterogeneity. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with moderate-high quality involving 1254 patients were included. Of these, 513 patients were managed with WW and 741 patients were subjected to RS. Compared to RS group, WW group had higher rate of LR (odds ratio OR = 11.09, 95% confidence interval CI = 5.30-23.20, P = 0.000), 2-year OS, and 3-year OS and had lower rate of PC (OR = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.05-0.29, P = 0.000). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to DM, CRD, 2-, 3-, and 5-year DFS (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.81-1.03, P = 0.153), or 5-year OS (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.28-3.63, P = 0.988). CONCLUSION: The WW is a promising treatment approach and is a relatively safe alternative to RS for managing patients with rectal cancer who achieve cCR after nCRT. However, this modality requires rigorous screening criteria and standardized follow-up. Large-scale, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to further verify the outcomes of WW approach.
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ann Goding Sauer; Stacey A Fedewa; Lynn F Butterly; Joseph C Anderson; Andrea Cercek; Robert A Smith; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Samantha K Hendren; Brenda I O'Connor; Maria Liu; Tracey Asano; Zane Cohen; Carol J Swallow; Helen M Macrae; Robert Gryfe; Robin S McLeod Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M M Lange; C P Maas; C A M Marijnen; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; E Klein Kranenbarg; C J H van de Velde Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: James D Harrison; Michael J Solomon; Jane M Young; Alan Meagher; Phyllis Butow; Glenn Salkeld; George Hruby; Stephen Clarke Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2008-04