ReviewOncology letters2026
Watch-and-wait in rectal cancer: A critical appraisal of promise, perils and unresolved contours of organ preservation (Review).
Review in Oncology letters, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Total neoadjuvant therapy has elevated pathological complete response (pCR) rates in locally advanced rectal cancer to unprecedented levels (25-30%), catalyzing interest in organ preservation via the non-surgical 'Watch-and -Wait' (WaW) strategy. Although this approach offers a paradigm shift, its rapid clinical adoption necessitates a critical appraisal of unresolved controversies. The present review synthesizes current evidence to outline the benefits of WaW while critically examining its inherent challenges. A comprehensive analysis interrogates the dualistic nature of WaW. It can provide favorable survival (5-year overall survival of 85% and cancer-specific survival of 94% in the International WaW Database) and meaningful quality-of-life improvements by avoiding radical surgery; concurrently, it embodies substantial risks due to the inherent imprecision of clinical complete response (cCR) assessment (a 10-25% discordance with pCR), a marked local regrowth rate (~25%) and unresolved long-term oncological uncertainties. In the present review it is argued that successful implementation of WaW depends on transcending current limitations through technological integration. Circulating tumor DNA is a promising but still investigational biomarker that may enable dynamic risk stratification; however, its clinical utility requires prospective validation. In conclusion, WaW has evolved from a radical concept to a reasonable, evidence-supported option within a precision oncology framework for a meticulously selected patient cohort, contingent upon rigorous multidisciplinary team assessment and an unwavering, structured surveillance protocol. Its future safety and efficacy will be defined by advances in response assessment, personalized monitoring and long-term outcome data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.