Du Rui, Chang Yue, Zhang Juan, Cheng Yuanguang, Li Yonghai, Zhang Chengyue, Zhang Jinyuan, Xu Liejuan, Liu Yuancheng
Department of Anorectal Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei First People's Hospital, Hefei, 230000, China.
Cancer Comprehensive Treatment Center, Hefei Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, 230000, China.
Asian J Surg. 2024 Feb;47(2):853-863. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.11.047. Epub 2023 Dec 1.
The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety between the watch-and-wait strategy (WW), radical surgery (RS), and local excision (LE) for rectal cancer with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nCRT). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinical trials to compare WW with RS and LE for patients with cCR until March 2023 and collected the following data: local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), cancer-related death (CRD), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). In total, 2240 patients from 21 studies were included. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the three groups in terms of CRD and 2-, 3-, and 5-year OS (P < 0.05). The RS group was significantly better than the WW group in terms of the LR rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.12, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.06-0.21, P < 0.001, I = 0 %], 3-year DFS (OR = 1.56, 95 % CI: 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01, I = 38 %), and 5-year DFS (OR = 2.30, 95 % CI: 1.53-3.46, P < 0.001, I = 34 %). The results of network meta-analysis were also similar. After sensitivity analysis, the 5-year OS of the RS group was significantly better than that of the WW group (OR = 2.77, 95 % CI: 1.28-6.00, P = 0.009, I = 33 %). Nevertheless, neither regression analysis nor subgroup analysis provided meaningful results. However, the cumulative meta-analysis of LR, DM, and 3- and 5-year DFS revealed significant turning points (P < 0.05). Our meta-analysis recommends using the WW strategy for patients with cCR having poor underlying conditions and high surgical risk; however, there is a risk of higher LR and worse survival after 3 years.
目的是评估新辅助放疗(nCRT)后达到临床完全缓解(cCR)的直肠癌患者,观察等待策略(WW)、根治性手术(RS)和局部切除(LE)之间的疗效和安全性。我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和临床试验,以比较cCR患者采用WW与RS和LE的情况,截至2023年3月,并收集了以下数据:局部复发(LR)、远处转移(DM)、癌症相关死亡(CRD)、总生存期(OS)和无病生存期(DFS)。总共纳入了来自21项研究的2240例患者。成对荟萃分析显示,三组在CRD以及2年、3年和5年总生存期方面无统计学显著差异(P<0.05)。RS组在LR率方面显著优于WW组(优势比[OR]=0.12,95%置信区间[CI]:0.06-0.21,P<0.001,I=0%)、3年DFS(OR=1.56,95%CI:1.10-2.21,P=0.01,I=38%)和5年DFS(OR=2.30,95%CI:1.53-3.46,P<0.001,I=34%)。网状荟萃分析结果也相似。敏感性分析后,RS组的5年总生存期显著优于WW组(OR=2.77,95%CI:1.28-6.00,P=0.009,I=33%)。然而,回归分析和亚组分析均未得出有意义的结果。但是,LR、DM以及3年和5年DFS的累积荟萃分析显示出显著的转折点(P<0.05)。我们的荟萃分析建议,对于基础状况差且手术风险高的cCR患者采用WW策略;然而,存在更高的LR风险以及3年后生存情况更差的风险。