Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33468176›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021

The watch-and-wait strategy versus surgical resection for rectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Qiao-Xuan Wang, Rong Zhang, Wei-Wei Xiao, Shu Zhang, Ming-Biao Wei, Yong-Heng Li, Hui Chang, Wei-Hao Xie, Li-Ren Li, Pei-Rong Ding and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Clinical target volume radiomics from planning CT for pretreatment response prediction  in rectal cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qiao-Xuan Wang *Department of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Rong Zhang *Department of Endoscopy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Wei-Wei Xiao *Department of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Shu Zhang *Department of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Ming-Biao WeiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Diseases, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yong-Heng LiKey Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hui ChangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Wei-Hao XieDepartment of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Li-Ren LiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Pei-Rong DingDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Gong ChenDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Zhi-Fan ZengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Wei-Hu Wang *Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xiang-Bo Wan *Department of Radiation Oncology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Diseases, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yuan-Hong Gao *Department of Radiation Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. gaoyh@sysucc.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6429-5376
Sun Yat-sen University · CNPeking University · CN

Funding

The National Natural Science Foundation of China 81672987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe watch-and-wait strategy offers a non-invasive therapeutic alternative for rectal cancer patients who have achieved a clinical complete response (cCR) after chemoradiotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of this strategy in comparation to surgical resection.

methodsStage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and achieved a cCR were selected from the databases of three centers. cCR was evaluated by findings from digital rectal examination, colonoscopy, and radiographic images. Patients in whom the watch-and-wait strategy was adopted were matched with patients who underwent radical resection through 1:1 propensity score matching analyses. Survival was calculated and compared in the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log rank test.

resultsA total of 117 patients in whom the watch-and-wait strategy was adopted were matched with 354 patients who underwent radical resection. After matching, there were 94 patients in each group, and no significant differences in term of age, sex, T stage, N stage or tumor location were observed between the two groups. The median follow-up time was 38.2 months. Patients in whom the watch-and-wait strategy was adopted exhibited a higher rate of local recurrences (14.9% vs. 1.1%), but most (85.7%) were salvageable. Three-year non-regrowth local recurrence-free survival was comparable between the two groups (98% vs. 98%, P = 0.506), but the watch-and-wait group presented an obvious advantage in terms of sphincter preservation, especially in patients with a tumor located within 3 cm of the anal verge (89.7% vs. 41.2%, P < 0.001). Three-year distant metastasis-free survival (88% in the watch-and-wait group vs. 89% in the surgical group, P = 0.874), 3-year disease-specific survival (99% vs. 96%, P = 0.643) and overall survival (99% vs. 96%, P = 0.905) were also comparable between the two groups, although a higher rate (35.7%) of distant metastases was observed in patients who exhibited local regrowth in the watch-and-wait group.

conclusionThe watch-and-wait strategy was safe, with similar survival outcomes but a superior sphincter preservation rate as compared to surgery in rectal cancer patients achieving a cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and could be offered as a promising conservative alternative to invasive radical surgery.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedChemoradiotherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyRectal NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesWatchful Waiting

Identifiers

PMID33468176
PMCPMC7816381
OpenAlexW3123349132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.