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 , 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","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 , 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\",\"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}
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.
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.