Brian L. Bello

PURPOSE: Prospective data on the efficacy of a watch-and-wait strategy to achieve organ preservation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized phase II trial, we assessed the outcomes of 324 patients with stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma treated with induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (INCT-CRT) or chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) and either total mesorectal excision (TME) or watch-and-wait on the basis of tumor response. Patients in both groups received 4 months of infusional fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin or capecitabine-oxaliplatin and 5,000 to 5,600 cGy of radiation combined with either continuous infusion fluorouracil or capecitabine during radiotherapy. The trial was designed as two stand-alone studies with disease-free survival (DFS) as the primary end point for both groups, with a comparison to a null hypothesis on the basis of historical data. The secondary end point was TME-free survival. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 3 years. Three-year DFS was 76% (95% CI, 69 to 84) for the INCT-CRT group and 76% (95% CI, 69 to 83) for the CRT-CNCT group, in line with the 3-year DFS rate (75%) observed historically. Three-year TME-free survival was 41% (95% CI, 33 to 50) in the INCT-CRT group and 53% (95% CI, 45 to 62) in the CRT-CNCT group. No differences were found between groups in local recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, or overall survival. Patients who underwent TME after restaging and patients who underwent TME after regrowth had similar DFS rates. CONCLUSION: Organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME, and postoperative chemotherapy.

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.

AIM: To systematically review these minimally invasive approaches to infected pancreatic necrosis. METHODS: We used the MEDLINE database to investigate studies between 1996 and 2010 with greater than 10 patients that examined these techniques. Using a combination of Boolean operators, reports were retrieved addressing percutaneous therapy (341 studies), endoscopic necrosectomy (574 studies), laparoscopic necrosectomy via a transperitoneal approach (148 studies), and retroperitoneal necrosectomy (194 studies). Only cohorts with at least 10 or more patients were included. Non-English papers, letters, animal studies, duplicate series and reviews without original data were excluded, leaving a total of 27 studies for analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies with 947 patients total were examined (eight studies on percutaneous approach; ten studies on endoscopic necrosectomy; two studies on laparoscopic necrosectomy via a transperitoneal approach; five studies on retroperitoneal necrosectomy; and two studies on a combined percutaneous-retroperitoneal approach). Success rate, complications, mortality, and number of procedures were outcomes that were included in the review. We found that most published reports were retrospective in nature, and thus, susceptible to selection and publication bias. Few reports examined these techniques in a comparative, prospective manner. CONCLUSION: Each minimally invasive approach though was found to be safe and feasible in multiple reports. With these new techniques, treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis remains a challenge. We advocate a multidisciplinary approach to this complex problem with treatment individualized to each patient.