Ouyang Kaibo, Yang Zifeng, Yang Yuesheng, Lyu Zejian, Wang Junjiang, Li Yong
Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2025 Mar 1;68(3):287-298. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003484. Epub 2024 Dec 5.
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery is the common treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Presently, for patients with complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, organ preservation ("watch-and-wait" and local excision strategies) has been increasingly favored. However, the optimal treatment for patients with complete clinical response remains unclear.
This study aimed to use Bayesian meta-analysis to determine the best treatment for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with complete clinical response among radical surgery, local excision, and watch-and-wait strategies.
PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase (Ovid) databases were searched for literature published through December 31, 2023.
Studies that compared 2 or more treatments for patients with complete clinical response were included.
The analysis was completed via Bayesian meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
Surgery-related complications, local recurrence, distant metastasis, and 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates.
Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria. The watch-and-wait group and local excision group exhibited a higher rate of tumor recurrence compared to the radical surgery group (watch-and-wait vs radical surgery: OR, 9.10 [95% CI, 3.30-32.3]; local excision vs radical surgery: OR, 2.93 [95% CI, 1.05-9.95]). The distant metastasis, overall survival, and disease-free survival rates of the 3 treatments were not statistically different. The radical surgery group had the most number of stomas and had the greatest risk of morbidity than the watch-and-wait group (watch-and-wait vs radical surgery: OR, 0.00 [95% CI, 0.00-0.12]).
The study included only 1 randomized controlled trial compared to 10 observational studies, which could affect overall quality. Funnel plots of disease-free survival rates and stoma suggest significant publication bias among studies that compared radical surgery with the watch-and-wait strategy.
The watch-and-wait strategy could be optimal for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
新辅助放化疗后行根治性手术是局部晚期直肠癌患者的常见治疗方法。目前,对于新辅助放化疗后达到完全临床缓解的患者,器官保留策略(“观察等待”和局部切除策略)越来越受到青睐。然而,对于达到完全临床缓解的患者的最佳治疗方案仍不明确。
本研究旨在通过贝叶斯荟萃分析确定在根治性手术、局部切除和观察等待策略中,局部晚期直肠癌达到完全临床缓解患者的最佳治疗方案。
检索了PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆和Embase(Ovid)数据库中截至2023年12月31日发表的文献。
纳入比较2种或更多种针对达到完全临床缓解患者的治疗方法的研究。
采用随机效应模型通过贝叶斯荟萃分析完成分析。
手术相关并发症、局部复发、远处转移以及5年总生存率和无病生存率。
11篇文章符合纳入标准。与根治性手术组相比,观察等待组和局部切除组的肿瘤复发率更高(观察等待组与根治性手术组:OR,9.10 [95% CI,3.30 - 32.3];局部切除组与根治性手术组:OR,2.93 [95% CI,1.05 - 9.95])。三种治疗方法的远处转移率、总生存率和无病生存率无统计学差异。根治性手术组造口数量最多,且与观察等待组相比,发病风险最高(观察等待组与根治性手术组:OR,0.00 [95% CI,0.00 - 0.12])。
与10项观察性研究相比,本研究仅纳入了1项随机对照试验,这可能会影响整体质量。无病生存率和造口的漏斗图表明,在比较根治性手术与观察等待策略的研究中存在显著的发表偏倚。
对于新辅助放化疗后达到完全临床缓解的局部晚期直肠癌患者,观察等待策略可能是最佳选择。