全肠系膜切除或全新辅助治疗后选择性观察等待患者的生存率:CAO/ARO/AIO-12和OPRA随机II期试验的汇总分析

IF 65.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Annals of Oncology Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-21 DOI:10.1016/j.annonc.2025.01.006
H. Williams , E. Fokas , M. Diefenhardt , C. Lee , F.S. Verheij , D.M. Omer , S.T. Lin , R.F. Dunne , J. Marcet , P. Cataldo , B. Polite , P. Piso , B. Polat , H. Dapper , M. Ghadimi , R.D. Hofheinz , L.-X. Qin , L.B. Saltz , A.J. Wu , M.J. Gollub , J. Garcia-Aguilar
{"title":"全肠系膜切除或全新辅助治疗后选择性观察等待患者的生存率:CAO/ARO/AIO-12和OPRA随机II期试验的汇总分析","authors":"H. Williams ,&nbsp;E. Fokas ,&nbsp;M. Diefenhardt ,&nbsp;C. Lee ,&nbsp;F.S. Verheij ,&nbsp;D.M. Omer ,&nbsp;S.T. Lin ,&nbsp;R.F. Dunne ,&nbsp;J. Marcet ,&nbsp;P. Cataldo ,&nbsp;B. Polite ,&nbsp;P. Piso ,&nbsp;B. Polat ,&nbsp;H. Dapper ,&nbsp;M. Ghadimi ,&nbsp;R.D. Hofheinz ,&nbsp;L.-X. Qin ,&nbsp;L.B. Saltz ,&nbsp;A.J. Wu ,&nbsp;M.J. Gollub ,&nbsp;J. Garcia-Aguilar","doi":"10.1016/j.annonc.2025.01.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Prospective data comparing watch-and-wait (WW) to mandatory total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) remain limited, as randomized control trials assessing these two treatment approaches are considered impractical. This pooled analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and OPRA trials analyzes survival outcomes among LARC patients managed with either a selective WW or mandatory TME strategy following total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT).</div></div><div><h3>Patients and methods</h3><div>The CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and OPRA trials were multicenter, phase II trials that randomized patients with stage II/III rectal cancer to receive either induction or consolidation chemotherapy as part of TNT. All patients in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial underwent TME within 6 weeks of completing TNT. The OPRA trial allowed patients with a complete or near-complete response to enter WW while those with an incomplete response proceeded to TME. The primary endpoint of the present pooled analysis was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints included distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>This pooled analysis included 628 patients (<em>n</em> = 304 CAO/ARO/AIO-12; <em>n</em> = 324 OPRA). Median follow-up was 3.6 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.13] years and 5.1 (IQR 2.2) years, respectively. Patients in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial were more likely to have cT3/4 and cN-positive disease while patients in the OPRA trial had tumors closer to the anal verge. Compliance to TNT and rates of grade 3+ adverse events were similar between studies. There were no differences in DFS, DRFS, LRFS or OS based on treatment strategy or TNT treatment arm.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This pooled analysis demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes between patients treated with mandatory TME and selective WW strategies following TNT. These results strengthen available evidence indicating that WW is a safe treatment option for patients with an excellent response to neoadjuvant therapy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8000,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Oncology","volume":"36 5","pages":"Pages 543-547"},"PeriodicalIF":65.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survival among patients treated with total mesorectal excision or selective watch-and-wait after total neoadjuvant therapy: a pooled analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and OPRA randomized phase II trials\",\"authors\":\"H. Williams ,&nbsp;E. Fokas ,&nbsp;M. Diefenhardt ,&nbsp;C. Lee ,&nbsp;F.S. Verheij ,&nbsp;D.M. Omer ,&nbsp;S.T. Lin ,&nbsp;R.F. Dunne ,&nbsp;J. Marcet ,&nbsp;P. Cataldo ,&nbsp;B. Polite ,&nbsp;P. Piso ,&nbsp;B. Polat ,&nbsp;H. Dapper ,&nbsp;M. Ghadimi ,&nbsp;R.D. Hofheinz ,&nbsp;L.-X. Qin ,&nbsp;L.B. Saltz ,&nbsp;A.J. Wu ,&nbsp;M.J. Gollub ,&nbsp;J. Garcia-Aguilar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.annonc.2025.01.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Prospective data comparing watch-and-wait (WW) to mandatory total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) remain limited, as randomized control trials assessing these two treatment approaches are considered impractical. This pooled analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and OPRA trials analyzes survival outcomes among LARC patients managed with either a selective WW or mandatory TME strategy following total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT).</div></div><div><h3>Patients and methods</h3><div>The CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and OPRA trials were multicenter, phase II trials that randomized patients with stage II/III rectal cancer to receive either induction or consolidation chemotherapy as part of TNT. All patients in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial underwent TME within 6 weeks of completing TNT. The OPRA trial allowed patients with a complete or near-complete response to enter WW while those with an incomplete response proceeded to TME. The primary endpoint of the present pooled analysis was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints included distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>This pooled analysis included 628 patients (<em>n</em> = 304 CAO/ARO/AIO-12; <em>n</em> = 324 OPRA). Median follow-up was 3.6 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.13] years and 5.1 (IQR 2.2) years, respectively. Patients in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial were more likely to have cT3/4 and cN-positive disease while patients in the OPRA trial had tumors closer to the anal verge. Compliance to TNT and rates of grade 3+ adverse events were similar between studies. There were no differences in DFS, DRFS, LRFS or OS based on treatment strategy or TNT treatment arm.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This pooled analysis demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes between patients treated with mandatory TME and selective WW strategies following TNT. These results strengthen available evidence indicating that WW is a safe treatment option for patients with an excellent response to neoadjuvant therapy.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Oncology\",\"volume\":\"36 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 543-547\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":65.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923753425000109\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923753425000109","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:比较局部晚期直肠癌(LARC)患者观察等待(WW)与强制性全肠系膜切除术(TME)的前瞻性数据仍然有限,因为评估这两种治疗方法的随机对照试验被认为是不切实际的。本研究对CAO/ARO/AIO-12和OPRA试验进行了汇总分析,分析了在全新辅助治疗(TNT)后接受选择性WW或强制性TME治疗的LARC患者的生存结果。患者和方法:CAO/ARO/AIO-12和OPRA试验是多中心的II期试验,随机选择II/III期直肠癌患者接受诱导或巩固化疗作为TNT的一部分。CAO/ARO/AIO-12试验中的所有患者在完成TNT治疗后6周内接受了TME治疗。OPRA试验允许完全或接近完全缓解的患者进入WW,而不完全缓解的患者进入TME。本合并分析的主要终点是无病生存期(DFS)。次要终点包括远端无复发生存期(DRFS)、局部无复发生存期(LRFS)和总生存期(OS)。结果:本汇总分析纳入628例患者(n=304 CAO/ARO/AIO-12;n = 324,仅)。中位随访时间分别为3.6年(IQR 1.13)和5.1年(IQR 2.2)。CAO/ARO/AIO-12试验中的患者更有可能患有cT3/4和cN阳性疾病,而OPRA试验中的患者肿瘤更靠近肛门边缘。两项研究的TNT依从性和3+级不良事件发生率相似。治疗策略或TNT治疗组的DFS、DRFS、LRFS和OS无差异。结论:这一汇总分析表明,在接受TME治疗的患者和接受TNT治疗后的选择性WW治疗的患者之间,肿瘤预后相当。这些结果加强了现有的证据,表明WW是对新辅助治疗有良好反应的患者的安全治疗选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Survival among patients treated with total mesorectal excision or selective watch-and-wait after total neoadjuvant therapy: a pooled analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and OPRA randomized phase II trials

Background

Prospective data comparing watch-and-wait (WW) to mandatory total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) remain limited, as randomized control trials assessing these two treatment approaches are considered impractical. This pooled analysis of the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and OPRA trials analyzes survival outcomes among LARC patients managed with either a selective WW or mandatory TME strategy following total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT).

Patients and methods

The CAO/ARO/AIO-12 and OPRA trials were multicenter, phase II trials that randomized patients with stage II/III rectal cancer to receive either induction or consolidation chemotherapy as part of TNT. All patients in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial underwent TME within 6 weeks of completing TNT. The OPRA trial allowed patients with a complete or near-complete response to enter WW while those with an incomplete response proceeded to TME. The primary endpoint of the present pooled analysis was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints included distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

This pooled analysis included 628 patients (n = 304 CAO/ARO/AIO-12; n = 324 OPRA). Median follow-up was 3.6 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.13] years and 5.1 (IQR 2.2) years, respectively. Patients in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial were more likely to have cT3/4 and cN-positive disease while patients in the OPRA trial had tumors closer to the anal verge. Compliance to TNT and rates of grade 3+ adverse events were similar between studies. There were no differences in DFS, DRFS, LRFS or OS based on treatment strategy or TNT treatment arm.

Conclusions

This pooled analysis demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes between patients treated with mandatory TME and selective WW strategies following TNT. These results strengthen available evidence indicating that WW is a safe treatment option for patients with an excellent response to neoadjuvant therapy.
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
Annals of Oncology
Annals of Oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
63.90
自引率
1.00%
发文量
3712
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Oncology, the official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, offers rapid and efficient peer-reviewed publications on innovative cancer treatments and translational research in oncology and precision medicine. The journal primarily focuses on areas such as systemic anticancer therapy, with a specific emphasis on molecular targeted agents and new immune therapies. We also welcome randomized trials, including negative results, as well as top-level guidelines. Additionally, we encourage submissions in emerging fields that are crucial to personalized medicine, such as molecular pathology, bioinformatics, modern statistics, and biotechnologies. Manuscripts related to radiotherapy, surgery, and pediatrics will be considered if they demonstrate a clear interaction with any of the aforementioned fields or if they present groundbreaking findings. Our international editorial board comprises renowned experts who are leaders in their respective fields. Through Annals of Oncology, we strive to provide the most effective communication on the dynamic and ever-evolving global oncology landscape.
期刊最新文献
Metastatic breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. GLP-1 receptor agonist use and cancer risk in obese nondiabetic adults. Future approaches to immune base biomarkers. Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Prediction of Abiraterone Efficacy in Two STAMPEDE Phase 3 Trials of Non-Metastatic Very High-Risk Prostate Cancer. Mechanisms of clinical resistance to selective FGFR2 inhibition by lirafugratinib
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1