The Evolving Neoadjuvant Treatment Paradigm for Patients with Locoregional mismatch Repair Proficient Rectal Cancer

The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has included preoperative chemoradiation, total mesorectal excision surgery and post operative adjuvant chemotherapy based on histopathology. The current therapeutic landscape in LARC has many different options with different directions of travel - depending on the goal of treatment. Enthusiasm for delivering total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is increasing in the light of recently published randomised phase III trials - RAPIDO and PRODIGE-23. There is a wide diversity of different potential schedules and a multitude of approaches, which include induction neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with a range of chemotherapy options (CAPEOX, FOLFOX, FOLFOXIRI) and a varying duration of 6-18 weeks, or consolidation NACT. These schedules either precede or follow short-course preoperative radiation therapy (SCPRT) using 5 × 5Gy or long-course chemoradiation (LCCRT) using 45-60Gy respectively. The different strategies of induction and consolidation neoadjuvant chemotherapy have been compared and have similar long-term outcomes, but consolidation chemotherapy may facilitate organ-sparing. The results are driving novel paradigms with both intensification and de-intensification treatment strategies. The ideal combination, sequence or duration of such a TNT approach remains undefined. As yet, there are no robust clinical, genetic, molecular, immune or imaging features (alone or integrated), which either direct or aid these choices. Currently, the selection of neoadjuvant treatment is driven by the impact on avoidance or feasibility of surgery or reducing the risk of metastases rather than prevention of local recurrence. Most believe that TNT will improve overall survival, despite the present lack of evidence. Both the inherent heterogeneity in LARC and the observed range of different responses underline the need for response biomarkers to individually tailor therapy rather than 'a one size fits all' approach.