Scholarlink

Background <p>Contemporary cancer research prioritizes clinical endpoints such as overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). However, definition of the starting point, “time zero,” for time-to-event analyses remains inconsistent in the rectal cancer nonoperative management (NOM) literature, affecting study comparisons. Moreover, the traditional definition of DFS for NOM is complicated given the success of salvage surgery for local regrowth (LR). Our aim was to evaluate how these definitions affect estimates of OS, LR, and DFS.</p> Methods <p>We analyzed both a single-institution and a multi-institution cohort of patients with rectal cancer on NOM, shifting time zero from diagnosis to the post-treatment response assessment and to the date of clinical complete response (cCR) determination.</p> Results <p>In the single-institution NOM cohort of 85 patients, shifting time zero from diagnosis to cCR determination led to a median 5-year OS decrease of 5% (87%→82%) and a 3-year LR rate increase of 4% (26%→30%). Importantly, the 5-year DFS increased by 23% (56%→79%) after excluding successful surgical disease salvage. In the multi-institutional dataset of 450 NOM patients, a shift of time zero from diagnosis to cCR determination led to a median 5-year OS decrease of 1.6% (94.2%→92.6%) and a 3-year LR rate increase of 1.1% (16.0%→17.1%). Five-year DFS increased by 8.3% (74.7%→83%) after excluding successfully salvaged disease.</p> Conclusions <p>The range of definitions of time zero and DFS affect oncologic estimates in NOM for rectal cancer, particularly in datasets with smaller sample sizes, which may misrepresent oncologic outcomes. This underscores the need for standardization to ensure accurate comparisons across studies and guide shared decision-making.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A Clinical Primer for Defining Time Zero in Rectal Cancer Studies of Nonoperative Management: Implications for Survival and Local Regrowth

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月20日

查看全文
  • Bailey K. Hilty Chu,
  • Totadri Dhimal,
  • Megan Boyer,
  • Anthony Loria,
  • Samuel H. Lai,
  • Xueya Cai,
  • Yue Li,
  • Paula Cupertino,
  • Virgilio George,
  • Christopher T. Aquina,
  • Colleen Donahue,
  • Jon D. Vogel,
  • Fergal J. Fleming,
  • Abhinav Gupta,
  • Adam D. Price,
  • Adam L. Booth,
  • Aileen De Mucha Flores,
  • Aimal Khan,
  • Alessandro Fichera,
  • Alexander T. Hawkins,
  • Amanda Hayman,
  • Andrea Fa,
  • Angela H. Kuhnen,
  • Anna A. Melio,
  • Anne C. Fabrizio,
  • Anthony Loria,
  • Anthony M. Villano,
  • Antonio Caycedo-Marulanda,
  • Arden Morris,
  • Arslan Amir,
  • Ashley Duby,
  • Benjamin D. Shogan,
  • Brendan Rosamond,
  • Brian N. Williams,
  • Brian V. Monahan,
  • Carla Newton,
  • Christine L. Hong,
  • Christopher Aquina,
  • Cody Munroe,
  • Colleen A. Donahue,
  • Dana M. Hayden,
  • David A. Kleiman,
  • David DQ Zhang,
  • David W. Dietz,
  • Deborah S. Keller,
  • Elizabeth Baker,
  • Erik Strungs,
  • Fergal Fleming,
  • Fernanda Romero-Hernandez,
  • Hela Saidi,
  • Henry R. Govekar,
  • Ian M. Paquette,
  • Jake Klausner,
  • Jeanne Quinn,
  • Jeffrey M. Farma,
  • Jennifer A. Kaplan,
  • Jennifer L. Miller-Ocuin,
  • Jennifer Rytych,
  • Jimmie Knight III,
  • John H Marks,
  • John RT Monson,
  • Jon Vogel,
  • Jonathan S. Abelson,
  • Julia Kohn,
  • Julia T. Saraidaridis,
  • Katerina KO Wells,
  • Kelli Beth Akemi Tavares,
  • Kyle G. Cologne,
  • Larissa Temple,
  • Leo Bustamente-Lopez,
  • Lisa Armstrong,
  • Luanne Force,
  • Madhulika G. Varma,
  • Marco Ferrara,
  • Maria Widmar,
  • Mark H. Whiteford,
  • Matthew F. Kalady,
  • Maureen Hill,
  • Melissa I. Chang,
  • Michael F. McGee,
  • Monique C. Matos,
  • Piyush Aggarwal,
  • Rami James N Aoun,
  • Ray S. Daugherty,
  • Robert K. Cleary,
  • Ryan Johnson,
  • Salvador G. Guevara,
  • Samuel A. Younan,
  • Samuel H. Lai,
  • Sonja Boatman,
  • Stephanie H. Greco,
  • Tara A. Russell,
  • Taylor Penn VPrasad Poola,
  • Virgilio V. George,
  • Vitaliy Y. Poylin,
  • Vlad V. Simianu,
  • Wolfgang B. Gaertner,
  • Yue-Yun To,
  • Zhifei Sun

摘要

Background

Contemporary cancer research prioritizes clinical endpoints such as overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). However, definition of the starting point, “time zero,” for time-to-event analyses remains inconsistent in the rectal cancer nonoperative management (NOM) literature, affecting study comparisons. Moreover, the traditional definition of DFS for NOM is complicated given the success of salvage surgery for local regrowth (LR). Our aim was to evaluate how these definitions affect estimates of OS, LR, and DFS.

Methods

We analyzed both a single-institution and a multi-institution cohort of patients with rectal cancer on NOM, shifting time zero from diagnosis to the post-treatment response assessment and to the date of clinical complete response (cCR) determination.

Results

In the single-institution NOM cohort of 85 patients, shifting time zero from diagnosis to cCR determination led to a median 5-year OS decrease of 5% (87%→82%) and a 3-year LR rate increase of 4% (26%→30%). Importantly, the 5-year DFS increased by 23% (56%→79%) after excluding successful surgical disease salvage. In the multi-institutional dataset of 450 NOM patients, a shift of time zero from diagnosis to cCR determination led to a median 5-year OS decrease of 1.6% (94.2%→92.6%) and a 3-year LR rate increase of 1.1% (16.0%→17.1%). Five-year DFS increased by 8.3% (74.7%→83%) after excluding successfully salvaged disease.

Conclusions

The range of definitions of time zero and DFS affect oncologic estimates in NOM for rectal cancer, particularly in datasets with smaller sample sizes, which may misrepresent oncologic outcomes. This underscores the need for standardization to ensure accurate comparisons across studies and guide shared decision-making.