The panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Guidelines on rectal cancer applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach addressing the following question: Should NOM vs. TME be used for patients with rectal cancer with clinical complete response after nCRT? Five outcomes were identified: disease-free survival (DFS), mortality, local recurrence, colostomy rate, and functional outcomes.
Nine studies were included in the analysis. A higher risk of disease recurrence was observed in the NOM group compared to the TME group (RR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.08, 2.64) on the other hand, we observed a slightly positive but not significant effect on mortality of NOM (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.46, 1.45). Patients in the NOM group were more likely to experience local recurrence (RR = 5.37, 95% CI 2.56, 11.27) and patients in the TME group were more likely to have a permanent colostomy (RR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.08, 0.29). Only one study evaluated functional outcomes. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as very low.
NOM was found to correlate with a higher risk of local recurrence which did not translate in worse OS and a lower colostomy rate. Due to the paucity of evidences, no recommendations are possible. NOM remains an experimental treatment; thus, patients managed with NOM should be enrolled in clinical trials with a dedicated follow-up schedule.
意大利医学肿瘤协会(AIOM)直肠癌指南的小组采用了建议的分级,评估,开发和评估(等级)方法解决以下问题:NOM与TME可用于在nCRT后有临床完全缓解的直肠癌患者?确定了五个结果:无病生存(DFS),死亡率,局部复发,结肠造口术率,和功能结果。
九项研究包括在分析中。另一方面,与TME组相比,NOM组的疾病复发风险更高(RR=1.69,95%CI1.08,2.64),我们观察到对NOM的死亡率有轻微的正效应,但不显著(RR=0.82,95%CI0.46,1.45).NOM组患者更有可能出现局部复发(RR=5.37,95%CI2.56,11.27),TME组患者更有可能进行永久性结肠造口术(RR=0.15,95%CI0.08,0.29)。只有一项研究评估了功能结果。证据的总体确定性被评为非常低。
发现NOM与较高的局部复发风险相关,但未转化为较差的OS和较低的结肠造口术率。由于缺乏证据,没有建议是可能的。NOM仍然是一种实验性治疗;因此,接受NOM治疗的患者应纳入有专门随访时间表的临床试验.