Patient-Reported Outcomes After Neoadjuvant Therapy and Watch-and-Wait for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Bailey K Hilty Chu, Anthony Loria, Totadri Dhimal, Lydia Rafferty, Marie Jacobs, Megan Boyer, Paula Cupertino, Fernando Colugnati, Erika Ramsdale, Fergal Fleming
{"title":"Patient-Reported Outcomes After Neoadjuvant Therapy and Watch-and-Wait for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Bailey K Hilty Chu, Anthony Loria, Totadri Dhimal, Lydia Rafferty, Marie Jacobs, Megan Boyer, Paula Cupertino, Fernando Colugnati, Erika Ramsdale, Fergal Fleming","doi":"10.1097/AS9.0000000000000602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rectal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by watch-and-wait.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Advancements in rectal cancer therapies have improved oncologic outcomes and increased focus on long-term treatment effects. Watch-and-wait, which aims for organ preservation in patients with a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy, is used more frequently. While watch-and-wait may reduce functional impairments associated with proctectomy, its association with PROs is poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting PROs for patients with stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant therapy and watch-and-wait. Random-effects model meta-analysis was performed when feasible; otherwise, data were synthesized through a narrative review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five studies (3139 patients) reported PROs for patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by watch-and-wait (n = 1283), proctectomy (n = 1583), local excision (n = 263), or declined surgery (n = 10). Most studies (64.0%) excluded patients with local regrowth, leaving PRO data for 103 such patients. Fourteen studies compared PROs between treatment groups after neoadjuvant therapy. Meta-analyses demonstrated fewer bowel symptoms and improved quality of life (QoL) in 1/6 subscales for watch-and-wait. Across 24 QoL comparisons, 14 showed improvement in some subscales for watch-and-wait, while 10 found no difference. For 24 symptom scale comparisons, 11 indicated some improvement with watch-and-wait, and 13 found no differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Watch-and-wait offers the potential to avoid permanent ostomy and surgical morbidity. However, more robust data are needed to assess its association with PROs compared to proctectomy or local excision. Researchers should prioritize publishing QoL data to better inform shared decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":72231,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches","volume":"6 3","pages":"e602"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12453364/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AS9.0000000000000602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in rectal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by watch-and-wait.

Background: Advancements in rectal cancer therapies have improved oncologic outcomes and increased focus on long-term treatment effects. Watch-and-wait, which aims for organ preservation in patients with a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy, is used more frequently. While watch-and-wait may reduce functional impairments associated with proctectomy, its association with PROs is poorly understood.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting PROs for patients with stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant therapy and watch-and-wait. Random-effects model meta-analysis was performed when feasible; otherwise, data were synthesized through a narrative review.

Results: Twenty-five studies (3139 patients) reported PROs for patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by watch-and-wait (n = 1283), proctectomy (n = 1583), local excision (n = 263), or declined surgery (n = 10). Most studies (64.0%) excluded patients with local regrowth, leaving PRO data for 103 such patients. Fourteen studies compared PROs between treatment groups after neoadjuvant therapy. Meta-analyses demonstrated fewer bowel symptoms and improved quality of life (QoL) in 1/6 subscales for watch-and-wait. Across 24 QoL comparisons, 14 showed improvement in some subscales for watch-and-wait, while 10 found no difference. For 24 symptom scale comparisons, 11 indicated some improvement with watch-and-wait, and 13 found no differences between groups.

Conclusions: Watch-and-wait offers the potential to avoid permanent ostomy and surgical morbidity. However, more robust data are needed to assess its association with PROs compared to proctectomy or local excision. Researchers should prioritize publishing QoL data to better inform shared decision-making.

直肠癌新辅助治疗和观察等待后患者报告的结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:评估接受新辅助治疗后观察等待的直肠癌患者报告的预后(PROs)。背景:直肠癌治疗的进步改善了肿瘤预后,并增加了对长期治疗效果的关注。观察和等待,目的是在对新辅助治疗有临床完全反应的患者中保存器官,被更频繁地使用。虽然观察和等待可以减少与直肠切除术相关的功能损伤,但其与pro的关系尚不清楚。方法:我们进行了一项系统回顾和荟萃分析,报告了采用新辅助治疗和观察等待治疗的I-III期直肠腺癌患者的PROs。可行时进行随机效应模型元分析;否则,数据是通过叙述回顾合成的。结果:25项研究(3139例患者)报告了接受新辅助治疗后观察等待(n = 1283)、直肠切除术(n = 1583)、局部切除(n = 263)或拒绝手术(n = 10)的患者的PROs。大多数研究(64.0%)排除了局部再生患者,留下103例此类患者的PRO数据。14项研究比较了新辅助治疗后各治疗组之间的PROs。荟萃分析显示,观察和等待的1/6亚量表中,肠道症状减少,生活质量(QoL)改善。在24个生活质量比较中,14个显示观察和等待的某些子量表有所改善,而10个没有发现差异。在24个症状量表比较中,11个表明观察和等待有所改善,13个发现两组之间没有差异。结论:观察和等待提供了避免永久性造口和手术并发症的潜力。然而,与保护切除术或局部切除术相比,需要更可靠的数据来评估其与pro的关系。研究人员应该优先发布生活质量数据,以便更好地为共同决策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信