With the development of society and changes in people's lifestyles, diabetes mellitus (DM) has become a major risk factor threatening human health, with its incidence rate increasing year by year. Based on the theory of "excessive fire consumes qi while mild fire generates qi", combined with the pathological mechanism and symptom characteristics of DM complicated with heart failure (HF), it is considered that deficiency and insufficiency of "less fire" and excessive "strong fire" consume qi are the fundamental pathogenesis of the occurrence and development of the two diseases. Phlegm, dampness, blood stasis and water are all from this, which further aggravates the disease. The basic treatment principle of "tonifying qi, activating yang, supporting Shao fire, clearing heat, detoxifying and strengthening fire" was proposed. Combined with the different emphasis of patients' syndromes, the treatment methods of promoting blood circulation and removing blood stasis, diuresis and phlegm were supplemented, in order to improve the clinical symptoms of patients and improve the survival rate.

Objective To evaluate the application of rabbit liver cancer model in teaching interventional medicine for graduate students.Methods A total of 10 first-year master graduate students majoring in Radiological Imaging(Interventional Medicine).who were studying at Zhengzhou University of China,were enrolled in this study.The rabbit liver cancer model was used as the experimental teaching materials.The teaching contents included the establishment of rabbit liver cancer model,the interventional operation of rabbit liver cancer,the method of scientific research and teaching,the evaluation of the teaching effect,and the survey of student satisfaction.Results Under the guidance of teaching tutor,the success rate of VX2 rabbit liver cancer modeling performed by the 10 master graduate students majoring in interventional medicine was 100％,and the mean operational quality assessment score was(11.5±2.0)points.During the operation of interventional surgery,the success rate of femoral artery puncture was also 100％,and the mean score for each interventional operation was(11.8±2.3)points.The students'experimental designs were evaluated by the expert group,the results were as follows:2 cases were rated as excellent,7 cases were rated as good,and one case was rated as moderate.The degree of students'satisfaction with experimental teaching method was high,the specific scores of each item are as follows:the understanding of the rabbit liver cancer model was(4.80±0.40)points,the command of interventional technology was(4.60±0.49)points,and the quality and practicability of teaching materials was(4.90±0.30)points.Conclusion This teaching method of using rabbit liver cancer model experiment can improve the animal experiment ability,interventional operation ability and scientific research innovation ability of graduate students.Animal model teaching method is an innovation of teaching mode for graduate students majoring in interventional medicine.

Objective:To explore the clinical changes in levels of the new clinical marker serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) pregenomic RNA (pgRNA) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) with long-term antiviral therapy.Methods:100 CHB cases who were initially treated with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) at Peking University First Hospital were included. The levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), HBV DNA, hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg), and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) during the follow-up period were measured. The TaqMan-based real-time quantitative PCR method was used to detect serum HBV pgRNA levels. The independent sample t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare continuous variables between groups, while Pearson's χ2 test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare categorical variables. Results:HBV pgRNA levels decreased significantly in patients who developed virological responses at 48 weeks ( n = 54) during subsequent treatment compared to those who did not ( n = 46). The HBV pgRNA level was lower in HBeAg-positive patients than in HBeAg-negative patients ( P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). Patients with higher HBV DNA and HBeAg-positivity levels at baseline had a higher HBV pgRNA level following antiviral therapy. There was no statistically significant difference in HBV pgRNA levels in patients with different HBV pgRNA levels at baseline after antiviral therapy. There was no correlation between serum HBV pgRNA and HBsAg at baseline, but there was a correlation after long-term antiviral therapy, while there was a weak correlation between HBV pgRNA and HBsAg at the fifth and ninth years of antiviral therapy ( r = 0.262, P = 0.031; r = 0.288, P = 0.008). Conclusion:HBV pgRNA levels were higher with higher HBV activity in CHB patients with long-term antiviral therapy.

Cardiomyopathy, Dilated/metabolism* ; Humans ; Microfilament Proteins/metabolism* ; Models, Cardiovascular ; Mutation ; Myocytes, Cardiac ; Pluripotent Stem Cells/metabolism* ; Transcription Factors/metabolism* ; Troponin T/metabolism*

Objective To explore the reasons for withdrawal from peritoneal dialysis (PD) in our hospital.Methods This was a single-center,retrospective cohort study.Patients who started PD in the Department of Nephrology,the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from November 1st,2005 to February 28th,2017,were enrolled,and followed up to May 31,2017.Patients who continued PD after May 31,2017 were as the control group.Patients who withdrew from PD were divided into 4 subgroups:death group,hemodialysis group,kidney transplantation group and loss of follow-up group.The clinical characters of 4 subgroups were compared with the control group.Results A total of 998 patients were enrolled with age of (49.36± 14.94) when PD started and median dialysis duration of 27.13(12.84,42.29) months,in whom 570 patients (57.11％) were male.Five hundred and seventeen dropout events were recorded,and the dropout rate was 51.80％.The main reason for withdrawal from PD was death (258 patients,49.90％),followed by hemodialysis (166patients,32.11％),kidney transplantation (66 patients,12.77％) and loss to follow-up (27 patients,5.22％).The leading cause of death was cardio-cerebro-vascular diseases (136 cases,52.71％),followed by infection (42 cases,16.28％),dyscrasia (20 cases,7.75％) and tumor (5 cases,1.94％).The main reason for transfering to hemodialysis was insufficient dialysis (76 cases,45.78％),followed by peritonitis (55 cases,33.13％) and catheter dysfunction (24 cases,14.46％).Compared with those in the control group,in the death group patients were older at PD commencement,and had higher proportions of hypertension,diabetes and cardio-cerebro-vascular diseases (all P ＜ 0.05).The proportions of male and diabetes mellitus were higher in the hemodialysis group than those in the control group (both P ＜0.05).Biochemical indicators showed that serum albumin and blood phosphorus were lower in the death group than those in the control group (both P ＜ 0.05);blood albumin was significantly lower in the hemodialysis group than that in the control group (P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions The main reasons for withdrawal from PD in our center are death and transfering to hemodialysis.The cardio-cerebro-vascular disease is the leading cause of death,and inadequate dialysis is the main reason for transfering to hemodialysis.

Objective: To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture-level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing "watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of "watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′s exact test for categorical variables. Results: Forty-eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3-year disease-free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty-five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over-treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%,70/77) and DWI-MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty-six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long-term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty-one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty-four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty-two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus-preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty-nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty-six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow-up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty-one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty-six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non-operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non-operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods A cross?sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture?level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing"watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of"watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′ s exact test for categorical variables. Results Forty?eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3?year disease?free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty?five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over?treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%, 70/77) and DWI?MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well?differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty?six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long?term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty?one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty?four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non?metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty?two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus?preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty?nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty?six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow?up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty?one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty?six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non?operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non?operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods A cross?sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture?level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing"watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of"watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′ s exact test for categorical variables. Results Forty?eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3?year disease?free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty?five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over?treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%, 70/77) and DWI?MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well?differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty?six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long?term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty?one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty?four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non?metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty?two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus?preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty?nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty?six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow?up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty?one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty?six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non?operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non?operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term outcome of organ preservation with local excision or "watch and wait" strategy for mid-low rectal cancer patients evaluated as clinical complete remission (cCR) or near-cCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). METHODS: Clinical data of 62 mid-low rectal cancer patients evaluated as cCR/near-cCR after NCRT undergoing organ preservation surgery with local excision or receiving "watch and wait" strategy at Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute from March 2011 to August 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the approximate 1:2 pairing, 123 patients who underwent radical resection with complete pathological remission(ypCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy during the same period were selected for prognosis comparison. The primary endpoint of the study was 3-year non-regrowth disease-free survival (NR-DFS) and tumor specific survival (CSS). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier curve (Log-rank method). The secondary endpoint of the study was 3-year organ preservation and sphincter preservation. RESULTS: The retrospective study included 38 male and 24 female patients. The median age was 60 (31-79) years and the median distance from tumor to anal verge was 4(1-8) cm. The ratio of cCR and near-cCR was 79.0%(49/62) and 21.0%(13/62) respectively. Local regrowth rate was 24.2%(15/62). Of 15 with tumor regrowth, 9 patients received salvage radical rectal resection and no local recurrence was found during follow-up; 4 patients received salvage local excision among whom one patient had a local recurrence occurred patient; 2 patients refused further surgery. The overall metastasis rate was 8.1%(5/62), including resectable metastasis(4.8%,3/62) and unresectable metastasis (3.2%,2/62). The valid 3-year organ preservation rate and sphincter preservation rate were 85.5%(53/62) and 95.2%(59/62) respectively. The median follow-up was 36.2(8.6-89.0) months. The 3-year NR-DFS of patients with cCR and near-cCR was 88.6% and 83.1% respectively, which was not significantly different to that of patients with ypCR (94.7%, P=0.217). The 3-year CSS of patients with cCR and near-cCR was both 100%, which was not significantly different to that of patients with ypCR(93.4%, P=0.186). CONCLUSIONS Mid-low rectal cancer patients with cCR or near-cCR after NCRT undergoing organ preservation with local excision or receiving "watch and wait" strategy have good long-term prognosis with low rates of local tumor regrowth and distant metastasis, which is similar to those with ypCR after radical surgery. This treatment mode may be used as an option for organ preservation in mid-low rectal cancer patients with good tumor remission after NCRT.
Adult ; Aged ; Chemoradiotherapy ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Neoplasm Staging ; Prognosis ; Rectal Neoplasms ; diagnosis ; therapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Watchful Waiting

OBJECTIVETo investigate the safety and efficacy of organ preservation surgery or "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients who are evaluated as clinical complete response(cCR) or near-cCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

METHODFrom March 2011 to June 2016, 35 patients with mid-low rectal cancers who were diagnosed as cCR or near-cCR following nCRT underwent organ preservation surgery with local excision or surveillance following "watch and wait" strategy in the Peking University Cancer Hospital. All the patients received re-evaluation and re-staging 6-12 weeks after the completion of nCRT, according to Habr-Gama and MSKCC criteria for the diagnosis of cCR or near-cCR. The near-cCR patients who received local excision and were pathologically diagnosed as T0Nx were also regarded as cCR. The end-points of this study included organ-preservation rate (OPR), sphincter-preservation rate (SPR), non-re-growth disease-free survival (NR-DFS), stoma-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival(OS). Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the survival data at 3 years.

RESULTSA total of 35 cases were analyzed including 24 males (68.6%) and 11 females (31.4%). The median age was 60 (range 37-79) years and the median distance from tumor to anal edge was 4(2-8) cm. Thirty-three patients received 50.6 Gy/22f IMRT with capecitabine and two patients received 50 Gy/25f RT with capecitabine. The cCR and near-cCR rates were 74.3%(26/35) and 25.7%(9/35) respectively. Excision biopsy was performed in 4 near-cCR cases to confirm the diagnosis of cCR. The non-re-growth DFS rate was 14.3%(5/35) and the median time of tumor re-growth was 6.7 (4.7-37.4) months. In five patients with tumor re-growth, four were salvaged by radical rectal resections and one received local excision. The distant metastasis rate was 5.7%(2/35), one patient presented resectable liver metastasis and received radical resection, another patient presented multiple bone metastases and was still alive. The median follow-up time was 43.7(6.1-71.4) months. At three years, the organ-preservation rate was 88.6%(31/35), the sphincter-preservation rate was 97.1% (34/35). No local recurrence was observed in five patients who received salvage surgery. The non-re-growth DFS was 94.0%. Three patients died of non-rectal cancer related events. The cancer-specific survival was 100%, the overall survival was 92.7% and the stoma-free survival rate was 90.0%.

CONCLUSIONSOrgan preservation surgery or "watch and wait" strategy for cCR or near-cCR patients is feasible and achieves good outcomes. This strategy can be an alternative to standard care, improve patient's quality of life and facilitate tailored treatment for mid-low rectal cancer following nCRT, however, it should be cautiously applied in near-cCR patients before local excision biopsy.

Adult ; Aged ; Anal Canal ; surgery ; Biopsy ; Chemoradiotherapy ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; Disease-Free Survival ; Female ; Humans ; Liver Neoplasms ; secondary ; surgery ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; prevention & control ; Organ Preservation ; Quality of Life ; Rectal Neoplasms ; mortality ; surgery ; therapy ; Reoperation ; Salvage Therapy ; Survival Rate ; Treatment Outcome ; Watchful Waiting ; methods