直肠癌保留器官的风险:来自两个国际直肠癌登记处的数据。

IF 42.1 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Laura M Fernandez, Guilherme P São Julião, Carlos Cerdan Santacruz, Andrew G Renehan, Oscar Cano-Valderrama, Geerard L Beets, Jose Azevedo, Blas F Lorente, Rocío S Rancaño, Sebastiano Biondo, Eloy Espin-Basany, Bruna B Vailati, Per J Nilsson, Anna Martling, Cornelis J H Van De Velde, Amjad Parvaiz, Angelita Habr-Gama, Rodrigo O Perez
{"title":"直肠癌保留器官的风险:来自两个国际直肠癌登记处的数据。","authors":"Laura M Fernandez, Guilherme P São Julião, Carlos Cerdan Santacruz, Andrew G Renehan, Oscar Cano-Valderrama, Geerard L Beets, Jose Azevedo, Blas F Lorente, Rocío S Rancaño, Sebastiano Biondo, Eloy Espin-Basany, Bruna B Vailati, Per J Nilsson, Anna Martling, Cornelis J H Van De Velde, Amjad Parvaiz, Angelita Habr-Gama, Rodrigo O Perez","doi":"10.1200/JCO.24.00405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery (total mesorectal excision [TME]) among patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR). Nearly 30% of these patients will develop local regrowth (LR). Although salvage resection is frequently feasible, there may be an increased risk for development of subsequent distant metastases (DM). The aim of this study is to compare the risk of DM between patients with LR after Watch and Wait (WW) and patients with near-complete pathologic response (nPCR) managed by TME at the time of reassessment of response.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from patients enrolled in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) with cCR managed by WW and subsequent LR were compared with patients managed by TME (with ≤10% cancer cells-nPCR) from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project (VIKINGO project). The primary end point was DM-free survival at 3 years from decision to WW or TME. The secondary end point was possible risk factors associated with DM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five hundred and eight patients with LR were compared with 893 patients with near-complete response after TME. Overall, DM rate was significantly higher among LRs (22.8% <i>v</i> 10.2%; <i>P</i> ≤ .001). Independent risk factors for DM included LR (<i>v</i> TME at reassessment; <i>P</i> = .001), ypT3-4 status (<i>P</i> = .016), and ypN+ status (<i>P</i> = .001) at the time of surgery. 3-year DM-free survival was significantly worse for patients with LR (75% <i>v</i> 87%; <i>P</i> = .001). When stratified for pathologic stage, patients with LR did significantly worse through all stages (<i>P</i> ≤ .009).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with LR appear to have a higher risk for subsequent DM development than patients with nPCR managed by TME at restaging irrespective of final pathology. Leaving the primary undetectable tumor in situ until development of LR may result in worse oncologic outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"JCO2400405"},"PeriodicalIF":42.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risks of Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer: Data From Two International Registries on Rectal Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Laura M Fernandez, Guilherme P São Julião, Carlos Cerdan Santacruz, Andrew G Renehan, Oscar Cano-Valderrama, Geerard L Beets, Jose Azevedo, Blas F Lorente, Rocío S Rancaño, Sebastiano Biondo, Eloy Espin-Basany, Bruna B Vailati, Per J Nilsson, Anna Martling, Cornelis J H Van De Velde, Amjad Parvaiz, Angelita Habr-Gama, Rodrigo O Perez\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/JCO.24.00405\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery (total mesorectal excision [TME]) among patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR). Nearly 30% of these patients will develop local regrowth (LR). Although salvage resection is frequently feasible, there may be an increased risk for development of subsequent distant metastases (DM). The aim of this study is to compare the risk of DM between patients with LR after Watch and Wait (WW) and patients with near-complete pathologic response (nPCR) managed by TME at the time of reassessment of response.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from patients enrolled in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) with cCR managed by WW and subsequent LR were compared with patients managed by TME (with ≤10% cancer cells-nPCR) from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project (VIKINGO project). The primary end point was DM-free survival at 3 years from decision to WW or TME. The secondary end point was possible risk factors associated with DM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five hundred and eight patients with LR were compared with 893 patients with near-complete response after TME. Overall, DM rate was significantly higher among LRs (22.8% <i>v</i> 10.2%; <i>P</i> ≤ .001). Independent risk factors for DM included LR (<i>v</i> TME at reassessment; <i>P</i> = .001), ypT3-4 status (<i>P</i> = .016), and ypN+ status (<i>P</i> = .001) at the time of surgery. 3-year DM-free survival was significantly worse for patients with LR (75% <i>v</i> 87%; <i>P</i> = .001). When stratified for pathologic stage, patients with LR did significantly worse through all stages (<i>P</i> ≤ .009).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with LR appear to have a higher risk for subsequent DM development than patients with nPCR managed by TME at restaging irrespective of final pathology. Leaving the primary undetectable tumor in situ until development of LR may result in worse oncologic outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"JCO2400405\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":42.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00405\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00405","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对于经过新辅助治疗并获得临床完全反应(cCR)的直肠癌患者来说,保留器官已成为手术(全直肠中胚层切除术 [TME])的一种有吸引力的替代方案。其中近 30% 的患者会出现局部再生(LR)。虽然挽救性切除术通常是可行的,但随后发生远处转移(DM)的风险可能会增加。本研究的目的是比较经过观察和等待(WW)后出现局部再生长(LR)的患者与在重新评估反应时接受TME治疗的近完全病理反应(nPCR)患者发生DM的风险:方法:比较了国际观察和等待数据库(IWWD)中登记的通过WW治疗的cCR患者的数据,以及西班牙直肠癌项目(VIKINGO项目)中通过TME治疗的患者的数据(癌细胞-nPCR≤10%)。主要终点是决定WW或TME后3年的无DM生存率。次要终点是与 DM 相关的可能风险因素:58名LR患者与893名TME后接近完全反应的患者进行了比较。总体而言,LR 患者的 DM 发生率明显更高(22.8% 对 10.2%;P ≤ .001)。DM的独立风险因素包括手术时的LR(v TME at reassessment; P = .001)、ypT3-4状态(P = .016)和ypN+状态(P = .001)。LR患者的3年无DM生存率明显较低(75% 对 87%; P = .001)。根据病理分期进行分层后,LR患者在所有分期中的表现都明显较差(P ≤ .009):结论:无论最终的病理结果如何,LR 患者在重新分期时发生 DM 的风险似乎高于接受 TME 治疗的 nPCR 患者。在出现LR之前,将原发的无法检测的肿瘤留在原位可能会导致更差的肿瘤治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risks of Organ Preservation in Rectal Cancer: Data From Two International Registries on Rectal Cancer.

Purpose: Organ preservation has become an attractive alternative to surgery (total mesorectal excision [TME]) among patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR). Nearly 30% of these patients will develop local regrowth (LR). Although salvage resection is frequently feasible, there may be an increased risk for development of subsequent distant metastases (DM). The aim of this study is to compare the risk of DM between patients with LR after Watch and Wait (WW) and patients with near-complete pathologic response (nPCR) managed by TME at the time of reassessment of response.

Methods: Data from patients enrolled in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) with cCR managed by WW and subsequent LR were compared with patients managed by TME (with ≤10% cancer cells-nPCR) from the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project (VIKINGO project). The primary end point was DM-free survival at 3 years from decision to WW or TME. The secondary end point was possible risk factors associated with DM.

Results: Five hundred and eight patients with LR were compared with 893 patients with near-complete response after TME. Overall, DM rate was significantly higher among LRs (22.8% v 10.2%; P ≤ .001). Independent risk factors for DM included LR (v TME at reassessment; P = .001), ypT3-4 status (P = .016), and ypN+ status (P = .001) at the time of surgery. 3-year DM-free survival was significantly worse for patients with LR (75% v 87%; P = .001). When stratified for pathologic stage, patients with LR did significantly worse through all stages (P ≤ .009).

Conclusion: Patients with LR appear to have a higher risk for subsequent DM development than patients with nPCR managed by TME at restaging irrespective of final pathology. Leaving the primary undetectable tumor in situ until development of LR may result in worse oncologic outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Journal of Clinical Oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
41.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
8215
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Oncology serves its readers as the single most credible, authoritative resource for disseminating significant clinical oncology research. In print and in electronic format, JCO strives to publish the highest quality articles dedicated to clinical research. Original Reports remain the focus of JCO, but this scientific communication is enhanced by appropriately selected Editorials, Commentaries, Reviews, and other work that relate to the care of patients with cancer.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信