TY - JOUR
T1 - Rectal Sparing Approach after preoperative Radio- and/or Chemo-therapy (ReSARCh): a prospective, multicenter, observational study
AU - Spolverato, Gaya
AU - Bao, Quoc Riccardo
AU - Delrio, Paolo
AU - Guerrieri, Mario
AU - Ortenzi, Monica
AU - Cillara, Nicola
AU - Restivo, Angelo
AU - Deidda, Simona
AU - Spinelli, Antonino
AU - Romano, Carmela
AU - Bianco, Francesco
AU - Sarzo, Giacomo
AU - Morpurgo, Emilio
AU - Belluco, Claudio
AU - Palazzari, Elisa
AU - Chiloiro, Giuditta
AU - Meldolesi, Elisa
AU - Coco, Claudio
AU - Pafundi, Donato P.
AU - Feleppa, Cosimo
AU - Aschele, Carlo
AU - Bonomo, Michele
AU - Muratore, Andrea
AU - Mellano, Alfredo
AU - Chiaulon, Germana
AU - Crimì, Filippo
AU - Maretto, Isacco
AU - Perin, Alessandro
AU - Urso, Emanuele D L
AU - Scarpa, Marco
AU - Bigon, Mariasole
AU - Scognamiglio, Federico
AU - Bergamo, Francesca
AU - Del Bianco, Paola
AU - Gambacorta, Maria Antonietta
AU - Rega, Daniela
AU - Pucciarelli, Salvatore
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - BACKGROUND: Rectal-sparing approaches for patients with rectal cancer who achieved a complete or major response following neoadjuvant therapy constitute a paradigm of a potential shift in the management of patients with rectal cancer; however, their role remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of rectal-sparing approaches to preserve the rectum without impairing the outcomes. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational study investigated the outcomes of patients with clinical stage II-III mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma treated with any neoadjuvant therapy, and either transanal local excision or watch-and-wait approach, based on tumor response (major or complete) and patient/surgeon choice. The primary endpoint of the study was rectum preservation at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary endpoints were overall, disease-free, local and distant recurrence-free, and stoma-free survival at 3 years. RESULTS: Of the 178 patients enrolled in 16 centers, 112 (62.9%) were managed with local excision and 66 (37.1%) with watch-and-wait. At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 36.1 (30.6-45.6) months, the rectum was preserved in 144 (80.9%) patients. The 3-year rectum-sparing, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, and distant recurrence-free survival was 80.6% (95% CI 73.9-85.8), 97.6% (95% CI 93.6-99.1), 90.0% (95% CI 84.3-93.7), 94.7% (95% CI 90.1-97.2), and 94.6% (95% CI 89.9-97.2), respectively. The 3-year stoma-free survival was 95.0% (95% CI 89.5-97.6). The 3-year regrowth-free survival in the watch-and-wait group was 71.8% (95% CI 59.9-81.2). CONCLUSIONS: In rectal cancer patients with major or complete clinical response after neoadjuvant therapy, the rectum can be preserved in about 80% of cases, without compromising the outcomes.
AB - BACKGROUND: Rectal-sparing approaches for patients with rectal cancer who achieved a complete or major response following neoadjuvant therapy constitute a paradigm of a potential shift in the management of patients with rectal cancer; however, their role remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of rectal-sparing approaches to preserve the rectum without impairing the outcomes. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational study investigated the outcomes of patients with clinical stage II-III mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma treated with any neoadjuvant therapy, and either transanal local excision or watch-and-wait approach, based on tumor response (major or complete) and patient/surgeon choice. The primary endpoint of the study was rectum preservation at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary endpoints were overall, disease-free, local and distant recurrence-free, and stoma-free survival at 3 years. RESULTS: Of the 178 patients enrolled in 16 centers, 112 (62.9%) were managed with local excision and 66 (37.1%) with watch-and-wait. At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 36.1 (30.6-45.6) months, the rectum was preserved in 144 (80.9%) patients. The 3-year rectum-sparing, overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, and distant recurrence-free survival was 80.6% (95% CI 73.9-85.8), 97.6% (95% CI 93.6-99.1), 90.0% (95% CI 84.3-93.7), 94.7% (95% CI 90.1-97.2), and 94.6% (95% CI 89.9-97.2), respectively. The 3-year stoma-free survival was 95.0% (95% CI 89.5-97.6). The 3-year regrowth-free survival in the watch-and-wait group was 71.8% (95% CI 59.9-81.2). CONCLUSIONS: In rectal cancer patients with major or complete clinical response after neoadjuvant therapy, the rectum can be preserved in about 80% of cases, without compromising the outcomes.
KW - local excision
KW - locally advance rectal cancer
KW - neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
KW - watch-and-wait
KW - rectal-sparing approach
KW - wait and see
KW - neoadjuvant treatment
KW - local excision
KW - locally advance rectal cancer
KW - neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
KW - watch-and-wait
KW - rectal-sparing approach
KW - wait and see
KW - neoadjuvant treatment
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/303530
U2 - 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001322
DO - 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001322
M3 - Article
SN - 1743-9191
VL - 110
SP - 4736
EP - 4745
JO - International Journal of Surgery
JF - International Journal of Surgery
ER -