ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Local Regrowth After a Watch-and-Wait Strategy for Middle and Low Rectal Cancer: Is Organ Preservation Still Feasible?
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Local regrowth: what are the surgical options?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Is surgery necessary for mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant immunotherapy? A retrospective cohort study with literature context.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- ASO Author's Reflections: Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma as an Oncological Consistent Entity: Insights from Proteomic Profiling and Lack of Anatomical Impact.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of rectal cancer has been transformed by advances in neoadjuvant treatments, leading to complete response in approximately 30% of cases and making a watch-and-wait (W&W) strategy feasible; however, this approach is associated with a local regrowth (LR) rate of up to 30%, and the management of LR remains non-standardized.
objectiveWe aimed to compare the oncological and quality-of-life outcomes of salvage total mesorectal excision (TME) versus local excision (LE) for LR following W&W in an expert colorectal surgery center.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included prospectively registered patients with mid and low rectal cancer who achieved complete response after neoadjuvant treatment and were subsequently managed with a W&W strategy at Bordeaux University Hospital between 2015 and 2022. The choice of treatment for LR was based on patient preferences, comorbidities, and multidisciplinary team recommendations. PATIENTS: A total of 103 patients were included in the W&W cohort. Among these patients, 33 (32%) developed LR, of whom 17 underwent TME, 13 underwent LE, and 3 presented with distant metastases and were not eligible for surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES: The new LR rate was significantly higher in the LE group compared with the TME group (4 vs. 0 patients; p = 0.02). Additionally, 54% of patients in the LE group ultimately required salvage TME (n = 7/13). The LE group reported poorer quality of life in terms of mobility (p = 0.019) and anxiety/depression (p = 0.001).
conclusionA second attempt at organ preservation using LE after W&W failure may expose patients to increased oncological risk and inferior functional outcomes compared with those undergoing salvage TME. These findings highlight the need for cautious patient selection and standardized protocols when considering LE for LR following W&W.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40802089What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.