Survival outcomes of salvage surgery in the watch-and-wait approach for rectal cancer with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the outcomes of the watch-and-wait (WW) approach versus radical surgery (RS) in rectal cancers with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: This study followed the PRISMA guidelines. Major databases were searched to identify relevant articles. WW and RS were compared through meta-analyses of pooled proportions. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence, and distant metastasis rates. Pooled salvage surgery rates and outcomes were also collected. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Eleven studies including 1,112 rectal cancer patients showing cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation were included. Of these patients, 378 were treated nonoperatively with WW, 663 underwent RS, and 71 underwent local excision. The 2-year OS (risk ratio [RR], 0.95; P = 0.94), 5-year OS (RR, 2.59; P = 0.25), and distant metastasis rates (RR, 1.05; P = 0.80) showed no significant differences between WW and RS. Local recurrence was more frequent in the WW group (RR, 6.93; P < 0.001), and 78.4% of patients later underwent salvage surgery (R0 resection rate, 97.5%). The 2-year DFS (RR, 1.58; P = 0.05) and 5-year DFS (RR, 2.07; P = 0.02) were higher among RS cases. However, after adjustment for R0 salvage surgery, DFS showed no significant between-group difference (RR, 0.82; P = 0.41). CONCLUSION: Local recurrence rates are higher for WW than RS, but complete salvage surgery is often possible with similar long-term outcomes. WW is a viable strategy for rectal cancer with cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, but further research is required to improve patient selection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".