Rectal cancer is a highly prevalent disease. Evidence presented in the 2025 phase-III OPERA randomised trial suggests that Contact X-ray Brachytherapy (CXB), with external beam chemoradiotherapy, is a viable organ-preserving alternative to radical surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical effectiveness of CXB in the treatment of rectal cancer. This systematic review was prospectively registered (CRD42021284969) and reported following PRISMA guidelines. Multiple electronic databases were interrogated using the search terms "Rectal cancer", "Contact Brachytherapy", and synonym terms. Clinical complete response (cCR) was the primary outcome. Proportional meta-analyses were conducted and presented as forest plots with summary proportions and 95 % confidence intervals. The literature search identified 973 studies, of which 52 studies encompassing 5447 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled estimates of outcomes were as follows: cCR rate = 82 % (95 % CI 76-88 %), Local Regrowth rate = 20 % (95 % CI 15-25 %), regional metastasis rate = 3 % (95 % CI 2-4 %), salvage surgery rate = 14 % (95 % CI 11-18 %), long-term disease control post-salvage surgery rate = 88 % (95 % CI 78-96 %) and organ preservation = 81 % (95 % CI 74-88 %). CXB in the appropriately selected patient population can achieve long-term disease control and organ preservation whilst avoiding major surgery. Salvage surgery remains a viable option for patients who experience disease regrowth with excellent long-term disease control. Clinicians should discuss CXB with rectal cancer patients, presenting it as a viable and safe alternative to radical surgery. This is particularly pertinent for patients who are stoma-averse or older patients in frail health.

Organ preservation through a watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy has become a viable option for select rectal cancer patients with clinical complete responses (cCR) to total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). This approach limits the morbidity associated with multimodal treatment. However, the optimal treatment strategy and predictors of treatment response are still unresolved. Rectal cancer incidence is rising, particularly in developing countries, and the disease is a major public health concern in Chile. Prior to the no operation after short-course radiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (NOAHS-ARC) trial, TNT-based treatments and W&W programs had not been implemented in Chile.

This single-arm, multicenter, phase II prospective trial, conducted in Santiago, Chile, will enroll patients with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma. Treatment involves induction short-course radiotherapy (25 Gy in 5 fractions) followed by consolidation chemotherapy (FOLFOX × 9 or CAPOX × 6 cycles). The response will be assessed 4-8 weeks after chemotherapy completion. Patients achieving cCR will be offered W&W, while those with incomplete responses will undergo total mesorectal excision. The primary endpoint is the rate of complete tumor response, combining pathologic complete responses (pCR) and sustained cCR (> 1 year), compared to a matched cohort treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation alone. The trial aims to recruit 48 patients, assuming a combined pCR/sustained cCR rate of 12%. Quality of life measures will be assessed, and a biorepository of tissue and plasma samples will be established for future research, alongside serial endoscopic and MRI images.

NOAHS-ARC seeks to advance organ preservation strategies in rectal cancer while pioneering TNT and W&W protocols in Chile. The study will also focus on functional outcomes and provide valuable data for improving patient care both locally and globally.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04864067. Registered on April 28, 2021.

With the results of several recently published clinical trials, this guideline focused update provides evidence-based recommendations for the indications and dose-fractionation regimens for neoadjuvant radiation therapy (RT), optimal sequencing of RT and systemic therapy in the context of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), and considerations for selective omission of RT and surgery for rectal cancer.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a multidisciplinary task force to update 3 key questions that focused on the role of RT for patients with operable rectal cancer. The key questions addressed (1) indications for neoadjuvant RT, (2) selection of neoadjuvant regimens, and (3) indications for consideration of a nonoperative management (NOM) or local excision approach after definitive/preoperative chemoradiation. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and system for quality of evidence grading and strength of recommendation.

For patients with stage II-III rectal cancer, neoadjuvant RT was strongly recommended; however, among patients deemed at lower risk of locoregional recurrence, consideration of omission of neoadjuvant RT was conditionally recommended in favor of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with a favorable treatment response or upfront surgery. For patients with T3-T4 and node-positive rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant RT, a TNT approach was strongly recommended. Among patients with higher risk of locoregional recurrence, TNT with chemotherapy before or after long-course chemoradiation was strongly recommended, whereas TNT with short-course RT followed by chemotherapy was conditionally recommended. For patients with rectal cancer for whom NOM is a priority, concurrent chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy was strongly recommended. Selection of RT dose-fractionation regimen, sequencing of therapies, and consideration of NOM should be determined by multidisciplinary consensus and based on disease extent, disease location, patient preferences, and quality of life considerations.

The task force proposed recommendations to inform best clinical practices on the use of RT for rectal cancer with strong emphasis on multidisciplinary care. Future studies should focus on further addressing optimal treatment regimens to allow for more personalized recommendations based on individual risk stratification and patient priorities regarding quality of life.

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.

The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the clinical effectiveness of capecitabine monotherapy and that of capecitabine combined with oxaliplatin as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy during preoperative radiotherapy in the management of low and middle rectal cancer. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Medical data were collected from individuals with locally progressing low and middle rectal cancer admitted to a regional hospital in China. Two groups of patients were formed for different chemoradiotherapy regimens: the oxaliplatin group and the capecitabine monotherapy group. Within the oxaliplatin group, the CAPEOX regimen was applied for 2 rounds during radiotherapy, intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin was administered 1 day prior to radiotherapy. In the capecitabine monotherapy group, capecitabine was implemented once daily during radiotherapy, and no medication was taken without radiotherapy. A total of 260 patients were included in the study. When oxaliplatin is administered concurrently with preoperative radiation therapy for patients with locally progressing low and middle rectal cancer, the pathologic complete remission rate can be considerably increased without appreciably increasing adverse effects or impairing postoperative recovery. On the other hand, the long-term effectiveness against metastasis and/or recurrence showed no discernible benefit.

Organ preservation (OP) strategies are gaining interest in improving the quality of life in the management of rectal cancer, particularly for tumors located in the distal or middle rectum. The optimal OP protocol is still not standardized and relies on randomized trials. This review summarizes past and ongoing studies on OP protocols for adenocarcinoma of the distal and middle rectum.

We searched for articles and abstracts on randomized clinical trials investigating OP approaches for rectal cancer, including data presented at the LUCARRE Congress held in Nice on November 25, 2023, covering ongoing and recently published trials on rectal preservation.

Our review's findings are presented in four tables: the first evaluates key trials with overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoint; the second provides an overview of past Phase III trials; the third reviews Phase II/III trials that specifically focus on local excisions (LE); and finally, the fourth summarizes ongoing trials. Each table is accompanied by detailed comments elucidating the significance and implications of the presented data, alongside a review of current guidelines.

We highlight the growing interest in OP strategies for rectal cancer management to enhance patients' quality of life. Despite the lack of international consensus on the optimal OP protocol, past and ongoing randomized trials provide valuable findings into the evolving management strategies of rectal cancer treatment. The presented data supports the role of randomized phase III trials to provide evidence for a change in clinical practice.

Owing to multimodal treatment and complex surgery, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) exerts a large healthcare burden. Watch and wait (W&W) may be cost saving by removing the need for surgery and inpatient care. This systematic review seeks to identify the economic impact of W&W, compared with standard care, in patients achieving a complete clinical response (cCR) following neoadjuvant therapy for LARC.

The PubMed, OVID Medline, OVID Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from inception to 26 April 2024. All economic evaluations (EEs) that compared W&W with standard care were included. Reporting and methodological quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), BMJ and Philips checklists. Narrative synthesis was performed. Primary and secondary outcomes were (incremental) cost-effectiveness ratios and the net financial cost.

Of 1548 studies identified, 27 were assessed for full-text eligibility and 12 studies from eight countries (2016-2024) were included. Seven cost-effectiveness analyses (complete EEs) and five cost analyses (partial EEs) utilized model-based (n = 7) or trial-based (n = 5) analytics with significant variations in methodological design and reporting quality. W&W showed consistent cost effectiveness (n = 7) and cost saving (n = 12) compared with surgery from third-party payer and patient perspectives. Critical parameters identified by uncertainty analysis were rates of local and distant recurrence in W&W, salvage surgery, perioperative mortality and utilities assigned to W&W and surgery.

Despite heterogenous methodological design and reporting quality, W&W is likely to be cost effective and cost saving compared with standard care following cCR in LARC. Clinical Trials Registration PROSPERO CRD42024513874.

Radical surgery following neoadjuvant therapy is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. A contact x-ray brachytherapy (CXB) boost can alternatively be used to treat residual disease postneoadjuvant (chemo)radiation, especially in patients who are not suitable for or do not wish to have surgery. Its role has mostly been studied to date in low- to intermediate-risk patients. We have now evaluated the utility of CXB boost in high-risk rectal cancers after their tumors have been significantly downstaged by neoadjuvant (chemo)radiation.

Oncological outcomes and treatment tolerability were evaluated in 328 patients based on rectal cancer treatment risk stratification: low-/intermediate-risk (cT1-3ab, N0-1, M0, no extramural venous invasion, mesorectal fascia involvement >1 mm) and high-risk (cT3cd-4/N2, M0, mesorectal fascia ≤1 mm, and/or extramural venous invasion positive).

With a median follow-up of 33 (IQR, 15-54) months and a median age of 73 (IQR, 62-80) years, no significant differences were found between low/intermediate and high-risk groups in clinical complete response (78% vs. 73%, P = .32), local regrowth (16.6% vs. 22.4%, P = .41), nodal (1.8% vs. 5.8%, P = .051) or regional (1.3% vs. 2.9%, P = .33) relapse, or postradiation toxicities (P = .16). However, the high-risk group had a higher distant relapse rate (21.2% vs. 10.7%, P = .01), with no significant differences in 3-year organ preservation (80% vs. 87%, P = .25), 5-year disease-free survival (62% vs. 64%, P = .46), or overall survival (67% vs. 64%, P = .88). Longer treatment time, treatment gap >24 weeks between therapies, and administration of a higher than standard CXB dose were newly identified factors that negatively impacted outcomes.

High-risk patients with rectal cancer treated with CXB boost had more distant relapses, but comparable locoregional tumor control, organ preservation, disease-free survival, and overall survival to lower risk patients, with acceptable toxicities. CXB boost is, therefore, a viable option for selected high-risk patients with rectal cancer. Timely reassessment, prompt referral, and CXB dose optimization are crucial for improving outcomes.

The management of locally advanced rectal cancer has changed drastically in the last few decades due to improved surgical techniques, development of multimodal treatment approaches and the introduction of a watch and wait (WW) strategy. For patients with a complete response to neoadjuvant treatment, WW offers an opportunity to avoid the morbidity associated with total mesorectal excision in favor of organ preservation. Despite growing interest in WW, prospective data on the safety and efficacy of nonoperative management are limited. Challenges remain in optimizing multimodal treatment regimens to maximize tumor regression and in improving the accuracy of patient selection for WW. This review summarizes the history of treatment for rectal cancer and the development of a WW strategy. It also provides an overview of clinical considerations for patients interested in nonoperative management, including restaging strategies, WW selection criteria, surveillance protocols and long-term oncologic outcomes.

The watch-and-wait (WW) strategy is a nonsurgical alternative for patients with rectal cancer exhibiting an excellent response to chemoradiotherapy. Studies on the WW strategy have primarily investigated 5-year oncological outcomes; few have focused on longer-term outcomes or the optimal patient selection approach for this therapeutic strategy.

This retrospective study enrolled patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma who had achieved complete response after chemoradiotherapy. Patients who achieved pathological complete response were categorized into a control group (n = 95) and those who achieved clinical complete response and were managed using the WW strategy were categorized into a case group (n = 33). Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for the between-group comparison of survival.

The median follow-up duration was 89 months. Compared with the control group, the case group exhibited improved long-term sphincter preservation, particularly for low-lying tumors (p = 0.032), and inferior nonlocal-regrowth disease-free survival (p = 0.007). Within the case group, patients achieving a complete response by positron emission tomography exhibited 5-year survival rates similar to those achieving a complete endoscopic response.

The WW strategy is associated with improved sphincter preservation but worse nonlocal-regrowth disease-free survival. The potential of PET in patient selection for this strategy deserves further investigation.

In this editorial, I would like to comment on the article, recently published in the World Journal of Clinical Oncology. The article focuses on non-surgical treatments for locally recurrent rectal cancer, including the watch-and-wait (WW) strategy after total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and particle beam therapy. As treatment options for rectal cancer continue to evolve, the high complete response rate achieved with TNT has led to the development of a new non-surgical approach: WW. Chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy, in particular, has a low rate of tumor growth and is a treatment aimed at achieving a cure without surgery. However, the risk of recurrence within two years is significant, necessitating careful follow-up. Establishing standardized follow-up methods that can be implemented by many physicians is essential. Carbon ion radiotherapy has demonstrated high local control with a low incidence of severe late toxicities, even after previous pelvic radiotherapy. While these new non-surgical curative treatments for rectal cancer require further investigation, future advancements in this field are anticipated.

For patients with rectal cancer, the standard approach of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery (trimodality therapy) is associated with significant long-term toxicity and/or colostomy for most patients. Patient options focused on quality of life (QOL) have dramatically improved, but there remains limited guidance regarding comparative effectiveness. This systematic review and associated guidelines evaluate how various treatment strategies compare to each other in terms of oncologic outcomes and QOL. Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology were used to search for prospective and retrospective trials and meta-analyses of adequate quality within the Ovid Medline database between January 1, 2012, and June 15, 2023. These studies informed the expert panel, which rated the appropriateness of various treatments in 6 clinical scenarios through a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi). The search process yielded 197 articles that advised voting. Increasing data have shown that nonoperative management (NOM) and primary surgery result in QOL benefits noted over trimodality therapy without detriment to oncologic outcomes. For patients with rectal cancer for whom total mesorectal excision would result in permanent colostomy or inadequate bowel continence, NOM was strongly recommended as usually appropriate. Restaging with tumor response assessment approximately 8 to 12 weeks after completion of radiation therapy/chemoradiation therapy was deemed a necessary component of NOM. The panel recommended active surveillance in the setting of a near-complete or complete response. In the setting of NOM, 54 to 56 Gy in 27 to 31 fractions concurrent with chemotherapy and followed by consolidation chemotherapy was recommended. The panel strongly recommends primary surgery as usually appropriate for a T3N0 high rectal tumor for which low anterior resection and adequate bowel function is possible, with adjuvant chemotherapy considered if N+. Recent data support NOM and primary surgery as important options that should be offered to eligible patients. Considering the complexity of multidisciplinary management, patients should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting, and therapy should be tailored to individual patient goals/values.

The watch-and-wait (WW) strategy in patients after complete clinical response (cCR) following chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) offers the option of organ preservation. The aim of this study was to assess the oncological outcomes of WW patients treated and followed up in a German referral cancer center.

In this retrospective study, we analyzed the clinical records of consecutive patients with LARC who underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy at our institution between January 2020 and December 2023 and received non-operative management after cCR.

A total of 30 patients undergoing WW for LARC were included. After a median follow-up of 17 months (SD = 10 months), local regrowth occurred in four patients (4/30, 13.3%), and one patient (1/30, 3.3%) developed distant metastasis. No predictor for tumor regrowth could be identified based on radiological findings at diagnosis, including cT4 and/or cN2, involvement of the mesorectal fascia, extramural vascular invasion or infiltration of the anal sphincter/levator. All patients with local regrowth were successfully surgically treated (R0 resection).

Nonoperative management for patients with cCR after neoadjuvant therapy for LARC proved to be safe. R0 resection was successfully achieved in all patients who underwent salvage surgery.

Potential differences in organ preservation between total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) regimens integrating long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) and short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) in rectal cancer remain undefined.

This natural experiment arose from a policy change in response to the COVID-19 pandemic during which our institution switched from uniformly treating patients with LCCRT to mandating that all patients be treated with SCRT. Our study includes 323 locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma patients treated with LCCRT-based or SCRT-based TNT from January 2018 to January 2021. Patients who achieved clinical complete response were offered organ preservation with watch-and-wait (WW) management. The primary outcome was 2-year organ preservation. Additional outcomes included local regrowth, distant recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).

Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between LCCRT (n = 247) and SCRT (n = 76) cohorts. Median follow-up was 31 months. Similar clinical complete response rates were observed following LCCRT and SCRT (44.5% versus 43.4%). Two-year organ preservation was 40% [95% confidence interval (CI) 34% to 46%] and 31% (95% CI 22% to 44%) among all patients treated with LCCRT and SCRT, respectively. In patients managed with WW, LCCRT resulted in higher 2-year organ preservation (89% LCCRT, 95% CI 83% to 95% versus 70% SCRT, 95% CI 55% to 90%; P = 0.005) and lower 2-year local regrowth (19% LCCRT, 95% CI 11% to 26% versus 36% SCRT, 95% CI 16% to 52%; P = 0.072) compared with SCRT. The 2-year distant recurrence (10% versus 6%), DFS (90% versus 90%), and OS (99% versus 100%) were similar between WW patients treated with LCCRT and SCRT, respectively.

While WW eligibility was similar between cohorts, WW patients treated with LCCRT had higher 2-year organ preservation and lower local regrowth than those treated with SCRT, yet similar DFS and OS. These data support induction LCCRT followed by consolidation chemotherapy as the preferred TNT regimen for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer pursuing organ preservation.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) of rectal cancer improves rates of pathological complete remission and progression-free survival. With improved clinical response rates, interest grew in a non-operative approach/watch and wait (WaW) for this disease. In 2020, the working groups of ACO/AIO/ARO published a consensus statement on the use of TNT, including a non-operative approach. However, the best combination scheme remains unclear. Despite the increasing use of TNT, there is a lack of comprehensive data on its current implementation and practices. To address this knowledge gap, a multicenter survey was conducted to capture the use of TNT protocols in German-speaking radiotherapy departments. At the beginning of 2023, a GDPR-compliant online survey was conducted in Germany, Austria, and German-speaking Switzerland. The questionnaire comprised 43 questions covering various aspects of TNT, including chemotherapy and WaW concepts. Most respondents (98.4%) confirmed awareness of the consensus on TNT for rectal cancer. Institutions treated an average of 30.22 rectal cancer patients annually. Most respondents (76.2%) reported treating over 80% of patients neoadjuvantly. Regarding TNT, 33.3% treated 21-50% with such a protocol. No significant association was found between the institution type and TNT application. In 62/63 cases, tumor board discussion was standard before offering TNT. VMAT was the predominant technique (82.5%). For rectal cancer dosing, the 50/50.4Gy scheme was most common, followed by 45Gy with a boost and the 5 × 5Gy scheme. Dosing schemes for TNT varied slightly, with more participants reporting the use of 5 × 5Gy compared to radiation therapy for rectal cancer in general. CBCT was the primary IGRT method (88.9%). Larger hospitals typically administered chemotherapy themselves, while private practices collaborated with medical oncologists (p < 0.0001). The most common concurrent chemotherapy drugs were 5-fluorouracil/capecitabine (64.4%) and oxaliplatin (37.3%). A WaW strategy was reported to be institutional implemented by 63.8%. The timing of offering WaW was split, with 50% offering it after radiochemotherapy and 47% during the informed consent talk. For planned WaW, 62% prefer normofractionated TNT. TNT appears to be widely implemented in the German-speaking radio-oncological community, regardless of the type of institution. Image-guided therapy, multidisciplinary team decisions, and internal guidelines play an important role. TNT seems to have already altered treatment protocols for rectal cancer toward an organ-preserving approach in selected cases. In these WaW cases, normofractionation appears to be preferred over hypofractionation.

The EFOMP working group on the Role of Medical Physics Experts (MPEs) in Clinical Trials was established in 2010, with experts from across Europe and different areas of medical physics. Their main aims were: (1) To develop a consensus guidance document for the work MPEs do in clinical trials across Europe. (2) Complement the work by American colleagues in AAPM TG 113 and guidance from National Member Organisations. (3) To cover external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, nuclear medicine, molecular radiotherapy, and imaging. This document outlines the main output from this working group. Giving guidance to MPEs, and indeed all Medical Physicists (MP) and MP trainees wishing to work in clinical trials. It also gives guidance to the wider multidisciplinary team, advising where MPEs must legally be involved, as well as highlighting areas where MPEs skills and expertise can really add value to clinical trials.

To measure the micro-foci distance away from gross tumor and to provide reference to create the clinical target volume (CTV) margin for boost radiotherapy in rectal adenocarcinoma.

Twenty-eight rectal cancer surgical specimens of only total mesorectal excision were collected. The pathological specimens were retrospectively measured, and the nearest distance between the tumor micro-foci and gross tumor was microscopically measured. The "in vivo-in vitro" retraction factor was calculated as the ratio of the deepest thickness laterally and the vertical height superior/inferiorly of the rectal tumor measured in MRI and those measured in immediate pathological specimens. The retraction factor during pathological specimen processing was calculated as the distance ratio before and after dehydration in the lateral, superior, and inferior sides by the "knot marking method." The distances of tumor micro-foci were individually corrected with these two retraction factors.

The mean "in vivo-in vitro" tumor retraction factors were 0.913 peripherally and 0.920 superior/inferiorly. The mean tumor specimen processing retraction factors were 0.804 peripherally, 0.815 inferiorly, and 0.789 superiorly. Of 28 patients, 14 cases (50.0%) had 24 lateral micro-foci, 8 cases (28.6%) had 13 inferior micro-foci, and 7 cases (25.0%) had 19 superior micro-foci. The 95th percentiles of the micro-foci distance for 28 patients were 6.44 mm (peripheral), 5.54 mm (inferior), and 5.42 mm (superior) after retraction correction.

The micro-foci distances of 95% of rectal adenocarcinoma patients examined were within 6.44 mm peripherally, 5.54 mm inferiorly, and 5.42 mm superiorly. These findings provide reference to set the boost radiotherapy CTV margin for rectal cancer.

External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) followed by Contact X-ray Brachytherapy (CXB) and vice versa are viable alternatives to surgery for selected rectal cancer patients who have small tumours (≤3 cm). However, the optimal sequence of treatment needs to be established. We compared two approaches using Propensity Score (PS) matching and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses to investigate whether the sequence of treatment affected patient outcomes.

This retrospective analysis (2008-2019) included patients with rectal adenocarcinoma (cT1-3,N0-1,M0, grade 1-2, size ≤ 3 cm) who received both EBRT and CXB, irrespective of treatment sequence. PS matching and IPTW were conducted to balance covariate standardised mean differences between groups. Oncological outcomes and rate of post-treatment rectal bleeding were assessed.

Following PS matching and IPTW analyses from 251 eligible patients; 103 starting with EBRT (median follow-up: 37 [IQR:18-56] months) and 148 with CXB (median follow-up: 32 [IQR:16-54] months, a significant improvement in 3-year overall survival (77% vs 85%, p = 0.02, [HR:0.58 (95% CI:0.37-0.91)]) and a higher risk of post-treatment rectal bleeding (grade 1 (26%) and grade 2 (6%)) were found in patients who started with CXB (p = 0.08). No significant differences were observed in local regrowth (18% vs 12%, p = 0.47), distant relapse (10% vs 6%, p = 0.53), 3-year organ preservation rates (70% vs 75%, p = 0.20, [HR:0.66 (95% CI: 0.35-1.26)]), or disease-free survival (78% vs 82%, p = 0.17, [HR: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.16-1.38)]) CONCLUSION: In patients with rectal cancer (≤3 cm), commencing with CXB rather than EBRT, was associated with improved overall survival, but had a higher risk of G1/2 rectal bleeding. No statistically significant differences were observed in other oncological outcomes.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has shown promise in achieving pathologic complete response (pCR) and enabling organ preservation through watch-and-wait (WW) strategies. However, implementation of WW protocols in diverse patient populations and safety-net hospitals faces unique challenges. The objective of this study is to evaluate TNT outcomes and identify barriers to WW implementation in a predominantly Hispanic safety-net hospital in South Texas.

A retrospective review was conducted of 40 LARC patients treated with TNT at an academic tertiary referral center in South Texas between 2018 and 2023. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and pCR rates were analyzed. A survey of multidisciplinary providers assessed perceived institutional and patient-related barriers to WW implementation.

The cohort was 70% Hispanic, with a median age of 54 years. Most patients had advanced disease at diagnosis (57.5% T4, 65% N2). The pCR rate was 18.5% (5/27) among patients undergoing surgery. Re-review of MRIs for pCR patients revealed that 2/5 had minimal residual disease. The provider survey identified MRI quality variability, lack of dedicated treatment coordinators, and concerns about patient compliance and financial barriers as key obstacles to WW implementation.

Despite advanced disease presentation in a predominantly Hispanic population, TNT achieved pCR rates comparable to international trials. Institutional and patient-level barriers to WW were identified, informing the development of a tailored WW protocol for this unique patient population.

Total neoadjuvant treatment (TNT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) increases pathologic complete response (pCR) rate and reduces the risk of systemic recurrences over chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in randomised trials, e.g., the RAPIDO trial. A modified RAPIDO schedule was prospectively explored in Sweden to evaluate TNT in routine health care before the RAPIDO results were published.

Between July 2016 and June 2020, 273 patients with high-risk LARC (clinical tumour stage cT4, clinical nodal stage cN2, extramural vascular invasion, involved mesorectal fascia or enlarged lateral lymph nodes) were treated in a prospective observational cohort study at 16 hospitals (LARCT-US). Another 189 patients at 18 (including the 16) hospitals were similarly treated (ad modum LARCT-US, AdmL) during the same period. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical to the RAPIDO trial. Patients received short-course radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy for 5 days) followed by four cycles of CAPOX or six FOLFOX-6, followed by total mesorectal excision or, if clinical complete response (cCR), inclusion into a watch-and-wait (W&W) study. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), i.e., the sum of pCR in specimens and cCR exceeding one year in W&W patients. Safety was assessed in all patients.

Compared to the RAPIDO trial, patients were older, and tumours more advanced. Median follow-up was 4.8 years (IQR 4.2-5.2). In LARCT-US all patients received radiotherapy and 268 (98%) started chemotherapy whereas in AdmL all patients received radiotherapy and chemotherapy. In LARCT-US 34 patients had pCR and 31 sustained cCR resulting in a CR-rate of 24% (95% CI 20-28). In AdmL, results were similar (23%, 95% CI 17-30). Locoregional recurrences were 6% (95% CI 4-10) and 5% (95% CI 2-9), respectively, both at 3 years and at last follow-up. Neurotoxicity, recorded in LARCT-US, was lower than in RAPIDO (EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 tingling toes or feet mean score 24 (SD 31) vs 43 (SD 37)). One treatment-associated death occurred.

Despite older patients and more advanced tumours, results similar to the RAPIDO trial were obtained. Hence, two chemotherapy cycles less do not compromise the results maintaining a high CR-rate. This TNT schedule resulted in favourable outcomes in a nation-wide real-life situation.

Swedish Cancer Society.

Background and Objectives: Conventional radiotherapies used in the current management of rectal cancer commonly cause iatrogenic radiotoxicity. Proton beam therapy has emerged as an alternative to conventional radiotherapy with the aim of improving tumour control and reducing off-set radiation exposure to surrounding tissue. However, the real-world treatment and oncological outcomes associated with the use of proton beam therapy in rectal cancer remain poorly characterised. This systematic review seeks to evaluate the radiation dosages and safety of proton beam therapy compared to conventional radiotherapy in patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: A computer-assisted search was performed on the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases. Studies that evaluated the adverse effects and oncological outcomes of proton beam therapy and conventional radiotherapy in adult patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer were included. Results: Eight studies were included in this review. There was insufficient evidence to determine the adverse treatment outcomes of proton beam therapy versus conventional radiotherapy. No current studies assessed radiotoxicities nor oncological outcomes. Pooled dosimetric comparisons between proton beam therapy and various conventional radiotherapies were associated with reduced radiation exposure to the pelvis, bowel and bladder. Conclusions: This systematic review demonstrates a significant paucity of evidence in the current literature surrounding adverse effects and oncological outcomes related to proton beam therapy compared to conventional radiotherapy for non-metastatic rectal cancer. Pooled analyses of dosimetric studies highlight greater predicted radiation-sparing effects with proton beam therapy in this setting. This evidence, however, is based on evidence at a moderate risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity. Overall, more robust, prospective clinical trials are required.

Locally advanced extraperitoneal rectal cancer represents a significant clinical challenge, and currently, the standard treatment is based on neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) followed by radical surgical resection with total mesorectal excision (TME). In the last 30 years, its management has undergone significant changes due to the improvement of complementary radio- and chemotherapy treatments, the improvement of minimally invasive surgical approaches and the diffusion of organ-sparing approaches, such as nonoperative management, commonly called "watch and wait" (NOM) and local excision (LE), in highly selected patients who achieve a major or complete response to neoadjuvant CRT. This review aimed to critically examine the efficacy and oncological safety of NOM and LE compared to those of standard TME in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant CRT. Both the pros and cons of these approaches were strictly analyzed, providing a comprehensive and critical overview of these novel management strategies for rectal cancer.

Our study investigated whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics features could predict good response (GR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and clinical outcome in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Radiomics features were extracted from the T2 weighted (T2W) and Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) images of 1070 LARC patients retrospectively and prospectively recruited from three hospitals. To create radiomic models for GR prediction, three classifications were utilized. The radiomic model with the best performance was integrated with important clinical MRI features to create the combined model. Finally, two clinical MRI features and ten radiomic features were chosen for GR prediction. The combined model, constructed with the tumor size, MR-detected extramural venous invasion, and radiomic signature generated by Support Vector Machine (SVM), showed promising discrimination of GR, with area under the curves of 0.799 (95% CI, 0.760-0.838), 0.797 (95% CI, 0.733-0.860), 0.754 (95% CI, 0.678-0.829), and 0.727 (95% CI, 0.641-0.813) in the training and three validation datasets, respectively. Decision curve analysis verified the clinical usefulness. Furthermore, according to Kaplan-Meier curves, patients with a high likelihood of GR as determined by the combined model had better disease-free survival than those with a low probability. This radiomics model was developed based on large-sample size, multicenter datasets, and prospective validation with high radiomics quality score, and also had clinical utility.

The treatment paradigm for rectal cancer has been shifting toward de-escalated approaches to preserve patient quality of life. Historically, the standard treatment in the United States for locally advanced rectal cancer has standardly comprised preoperative chemoradiotherapy coupled with total mesorectal excision. Recent data challenge this "one-size-fits-all" strategy, supporting the possibility of omitting surgery for certain patients who achieve a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. Consequently, patients and their physicians must navigate diverse neoadjuvant options, often in the context of pursuing organ preservation. Total neoadjuvant therapy, involving the administration of all chemotherapy and radiation before total mesorectal excision, is associated with the highest rates of clinical complete response. However, questions persist regarding the optimal sequencing of radiation and chemotherapy and the choice between short-course and long-course radiation. Additionally, meticulous response assessment and surveillance are critical for selecting patients for nonoperative management without compromising the excellent cure rates associated with trimodality therapy. As nonoperative management becomes increasingly recognized as a standard-of-care treatment option for patients with rectal cancer, ongoing research in patient selection and monitoring as well as patient-reported outcomes is critical to guide personalized rectal cancer management within a patient-centered framework.

Delivery of high precision radiotherapy lymph node boosts requires detailed information on the interfraction positional variation of individual lymph nodes. In this study we characterized interfraction positional shifts of suspected malignant lymph nodes for rectal cancer patients receiving long course radiotherapy. Furthermore, we investigated parameters which could affect the magnitude of the position variation.

Fourteen patients from a prospective clinical imaging study with a total of 61 suspected malignant lymph nodes in the mesorectum, presacral, and lateral regions, were included. The primary gross tumor volume (GTVp) and all suspected malignant lymph nodes were delineated on six magnetic resonance imaging scans per patient. Positional variation was calculated as systematic and random errors, based on shifts of center-of-mass, and estimated relative to either bony structures or the GTVp using a hierarchical linear mixed model.

Depending on location and direction, systematic and random variations (relative to bony structures) were within 0.6-2.8 mm and 0.6-2.9 mm, respectively. Systematic and random variations increased when evaluating position relative to GTVp (median increase of 0.6 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively). Correlations with scan time-point and relative bladder volume were found in some directions.

Using linear mixed modeling, we estimated systematic and random positional variation for suspected malignant lymph nodes in rectal cancer patients treated with long course radiotherapy. Statistically significant correlations of the magnitude of the lymph node shifts were found related to scan time-point and relative bladder volume.

Recently, organ preservation with total neoadjuvant therapy resulted in substantial progress in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). The PROSPECT trial showed noninferiority of de-escalation of radiotherapy for patients with low-risk LARC who do not need abdominoperineal resection. Although these escalation and de-escalation approaches offer more personalized therapeutic approaches, the current state of care for patients with rectal cancer is far from individualized management. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is known to be one of the most powerful prognostic factors for early relapse and has been investigated in several interventional clinical trials to offer more precise treatment algorithms. In this review article, we discuss recent updates from studies examining the role of ctDNA for the prediction of treatment response and recurrence for patients with rectal cancer. We also elaborate on the future potential use of ctDNA in treatment escalation and de-escalation approaches for more personalized therapeutic interventions.

Survival data on patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) undergoing non-operative management (NOM) in a real-world setting are lacking.

We analyzed LARC patients from the National Cancer Database with the following features: treated between 2010 and 2020, age 18-65 years, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) ≤ 1, received neoadjuvant multiagent chemotherapy plus radiation ≥ 45 Gray, and underwent surgery or NOM. Patients were stratified into two groups: (A) clinical T1-3 tumors with positive nodes (cT1-3N+) and (B) clinical T4 tumors, N+/- (cT4N+/-). We performed a comparative analysis of overall survival (OS) with NOM versus surgery by the Kaplan-Meier method and propensity score matching. Additionally, a multivariable analysis explored the association between NOM and OS.

NOM exhibited significantly lower OS than surgery in both groups. In cT1-3N+ patients, NOM resulted in a 5-year OS of 73.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69.7-77.6%) versus 84.5% (95% CI = 83.6-85.3%) with surgery (p < 0.001). In the cT4N+/- group, NOM yielded a 5-year OS of 44.5% (95% CI = 37.0-51.8%) versus 72.5% (95% CI = 69.9-74.8%) with surgery (p < 0.001). Propensity score matching and multivariable analyses revealed similar conclusions.

Patients with LARC undergoing NOM versus surgery in real-world settings appear to have inferior survival.

The standard treatment for low rectal cancer is preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with low anterior resection with diverting ileostomy or abdominoperineal resection, both of which have significant long-term effects on bowel and sexual function. Due to the high morbidity of surgery, there has been increasing interest in nonoperative management for low rectal cancer. The aim of this work is to conduct a pan-Canadian Phase II trial assessing the safety of nonoperative management for low rectal cancer.

Patients with Stage II or III low rectal cancer completing chemoradiotherapy according to standard of care at participating centres will be assessed for complete clinical response 8-14 weeks following completion of chemoradiotherapy. Subjects achieving a clinical complete response will undergo active surveillance including endoscopy, imaging and bloodwork at regular intervals for 24 months. The primary outcome will be the rate of local regrowth 2 years after chemoradiotherapy. Nonoperative management will be considered safe (i.e. as effective as surgery to achieve local control) if the rate of local regrowth is ≤30% and surgical salvage is possible for all local regrowths. Secondary outcomes will include disease-free and overall survival.

The results will be highly clinically relevant, as it is expected that nonoperative management will be safe and lead to widespread adoption of nonoperative management in Canada. This change in practice has the potential to decrease the number of patients requiring surgery and the costs associated with surgery and long-term surgical morbidity.

A variety of definitions for a clinical near-complete response after neoadjuvant (chemo) radiotherapy for rectal cancer are currently used. This variety leads to inconsistency in clinical practice, long-term outcome, and trial enrollment.

The aim of this study was to reach expert-based consensus on the definition of a clinical near-complete response after (chemo) radiotherapy.

A modified Delphi process, including a systematic review, 3 surveys, and 2 meetings, was performed with an international expert panel consisting of 7 surgeons and 4 radiologists. The surveys consisted of individual features, statements, and feature combinations (endoscopy, T2-weighted MRI, and diffusion-weighted MRI).

The modified Delphi process was performed in an online setting; all 3 surveys were completed online by the expert panel, and both meetings were hosted online.

The main outcome was to reach consensus (80% or more agreement).

The expert panel reached consensus on a 3-tier categorization of the near-complete response category based on the likelihood of the response to evolve into a clinical complete response after a longer waiting interval. The panelists agreed that a near-complete response is a temporary entity only to be used in the first 6 months after (chemo)radiotherapy. Furthermore, consensus was reached that the lymph node status should be considered when deciding on a near-complete response and that biopsies are not always needed when a near-complete response is found. No consensus was reached on whether primary staging characteristics have to be taken into account when deciding on a near-complete response.

This 3-tier subcategorization is expert-based; therefore, there is no supporting evidence for this subcategorization. Also, it is unclear whether this subcategorization can be generalized into clinical practice.

Consensus was reached on the use of a 3-tier categorization of a near-complete response, which can be helpful in daily practice as guidance for treatment and to inform patients with a near-complete response on the likelihood of successful organ preservation. See Video Abstract.

ANTECEDENTES:Actualmente, se utilizan una variedad de definiciones para una respuesta clínica casi completa después de quimioradioterapia neoadyuvante contra el cáncer de recto. Esta variedad resulta en inconsistencia en la práctica clínica, los resultados a largo plazo y la inscripción en ensayos.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue llegar a un consenso de expertos sobre la definición de una respuesta clínica casi completa después de quimioradioterapia.DISEÑO:Se realizó un proceso Delphi modificado que incluyó una revisión sistemática, 3 encuestas y 2 reuniones con un panel internacional de expertos compuesto por siete cirujanos y 4 radiólogos. Las encuestas consistieron en características individuales, declaraciones y combinaciones de características (endoscopía, T2W-MRI y DWI).AJUSTE:El proceso Delphi modificado se realizó en un entorno en línea; el panel de expertos completó las tres encuestas en línea y ambas reuniones se realizaron en línea.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado principal fue llegar a un consenso (≥80% de acuerdo).RESULTADOS:El panel de expertos llegó a un consenso sobre una categorización de tres niveles de la categoría de respuesta casi completa basada en la probabilidad de que la respuesta evolucione hacia una respuesta clínica completa después de un intervalo de espera más largo. Los panelistas coincidieron en que una respuesta casi completa es una entidad temporal que sólo debe utilizarse en los primeros 6 meses después de la quimioradioterapia. Además, se llegó a un consenso en que se debe considerar el estado de los nódulos linfáticos al decidir sobre una respuesta casi completa y que no siempre se necesitan biopsias cuando se encuentra una respuesta casi completa. No se llegó a un consenso sobre si se deben tener en cuenta las características primarias de estadificación al decidir una respuesta casi completa.LIMITACIONES:Esta subcategorización de 3 niveles está basada en expertos; por lo tanto, no hay evidencia que respalde esta subcategorización. Además, no está claro si esta subcategorización puede generalizarse a la práctica clínica.CONCLUSIONES:Se alcanzó consenso sobre el uso de una categorización de 3 niveles de una respuesta casi completa que puede ser útil en la práctica diaria como guía para el tratamiento y para informar a los pacientes con una respuesta casi completa sobre la probabilidad de una preservación exitosa del órgano. (Traducción - Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez).

Premastectomy radiotherapy (PreMRT) is a new treatment sequence to avoid the adverse effects of radiotherapy on the final breast reconstruction while achieving the benefits of immediate breast reconstruction (IMBR).

To evaluate outcomes among patients who received PreMRT and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) followed by mastectomy and IMBR.

This was a phase 2 single-center randomized clinical trial conducted between August 3, 2018, and August 2, 2022, evaluating the feasibility and safety of PreMRT and RNI (including internal mammary lymph nodes). Patients with cT0-T3, N0-N3b breast cancer and a recommendation for radiotherapy were eligible.

This trial evaluated outcomes after PreMRT followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated (40.05 Gy/15 fractions) or conventionally fractionated (50 Gy/25 fractions) RNI.

The primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as complete autologous flap loss. Demographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected, and associations between multiple variables and outcomes were evaluated. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis.

Fifty patients were enrolled. Among 49 evaluable patients, the median age was 48 years (range, 31-72 years), and 46 patients (94%) received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Twenty-five patients received 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the breast and 45 Gy in 25 fractions to regional nodes, and 24 patients received 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions to the breast and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions to regional nodes, including internal mammary lymph nodes. Forty-eight patients underwent mastectomy with IMBR, at a median of 23 days (IQR, 20-28.5 days) after radiotherapy. Forty-one patients had microvascular autologous flap reconstruction, 5 underwent latissimus dorsi pedicled flap reconstruction, and 2 had tissue expander placement. There were no complete autologous flap losses, and 1 patient underwent tissue expander explantation. Eight of 48 patients (17%) had mastectomy skin flap necrosis of the treated breast, of whom 1 underwent reoperation. During follow-up (median, 29.7 months [range, 10.1-65.2 months]), there were no locoregional recurrences or distant metastasis.

This randomized clinical trial found PreMRT and RNI followed by mastectomy and microvascular autologous flap IMBR to be feasible and safe. Based on these results, a larger randomized clinical trial of hypofractionated vs conventionally fractionated PreMRT has been started (NCT05774678).

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02912312.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.To assess long-term risk of local tumor regrowth, we report updated organ preservation rate and oncologic outcomes of the OPRA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02008656). Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were randomly assigned to receive induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT). Patients who achieved a complete or near-complete response after finishing treatment were offered watch-and-wait (WW). Total mesorectal excision (TME) was recommended for those who achieved an incomplete response. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary end point was TME-free survival. In total, 324 patients were randomly assigned (INCT-CRT, n = 158; CRT-CNCT, n = 166). Median follow-up was 5.1 years. The 5-year DFS rates were 71% (95% CI, 64 to 79) and 69% (95% CI, 62 to 77) for INCT-CRT and CRT-CNCT, respectively (P = .68). TME-free survival was 39% (95% CI, 32 to 48) in the INCT-CRT group and 54% (95% CI, 46 to 62) in the CRT-CNCT group (P = .012). Of 81 patients with regrowth, 94% occurred within 2 years and 99% occurred within 3 years. DFS was similar for patients who underwent TME after restaging (64% [95% CI, 53 to 78]) and patients in WW who underwent TME after regrowth (64% [95% CI, 53 to 78]; P = .94). Updated analysis continues to show long-term organ preservation in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy. In patients who enter WW, most cases of tumor regrowth occur in the first 2 years.

Non-surgical management of rectal cancer relies on (chemo)radiotherapy as the definitive treatment modality. This study reports and evaluates the clinical high dose radiotherapy treatment plans delivered to patients with low resectable rectal cancer in a Danish multicenter trial.

The Danish prospective multicenter phase II Watchful Waiting 2 trial (NCT02438839) investigated definitive chemoradiation for non-surgical management of low rectal cancer. Three Danish centers participated in the trial and committed to protocol-specified treatment planning and delivery requirements. The protocol specified a dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions to the elective volume (CTV-/PTV-E) and a concomitant boost of 62 Gy in 28 fractions to the primary target volume (CTV-/PTV-T).

The trial included 108 patients, of which 106 treatment plans were available for retrospective analysis. Dose coverage planning goals for the main target structures were fulfilled for 94% of the treatment plans. However, large intercenter differences in doses to organs-at-risk (OARs) were seen, especially for the intestines. Five patients had a V60Gy>10 cm3 for the intestines and two patients for the bladder.

Prescribed planning goals for target coverage were fulfilled for 94% of the treatment plans, however analysis of OAR doses and volumes indicated intercenter variations. Dose escalation to 62 Gy (as a concomitant boost to the primary tumor) introduced no substantial high dose volumes (>60 Gy) to the bladder and intestines. The treatment planning goals may be used for future prospective evaluation of highdose radiotherapy for organ preservation for low rectal cancer.