Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19350306›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2009

[Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer].

W Hohenberger, G Lahmer, R Fietkau, R S Croner, S Merkel, J Göhl, R Sauer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

W HohenbergerChirurgische Klinik, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Krankenhausstrasse 12, Erlangen, Germany. Werner.Hohenberger@uk-erlangen.de
G Lahmer
R Fietkau
R S Croner
S Merkel
J Göhl
R Sauer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy has become established treatment for rectal cancer. It is indicated when primary R0 resection is not an option, in cases of higher risk of locoregional relapse following surgical treatment alone, and when initially impossible conservation of the anal sphincter becomes possible in conjunction with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. The indication for radiochemotherapy in the upper third of the rectum is still controversial. Reevaluation of the tumor situation following neoadjuvant treatment is necessary before decisions on operative strategy. Modern imaging techniques are limited in this respect, as they hardly allow differentiation between living tumor tissue and lesions. In case of doubt clarity is possible only through surgical exploration, taking R1 resection into account. Overall the recognition of lymph node metastasis is not a sufficient indicator of local relapse. The frequency of postoperative complications following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy is independent of the operative method. The effect of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy on long-term survival and formation of distant metastases is still not clarified. Current studies seek clarification through the use of new chemotherapies and modified treatment regimes. Further, the correct time interval between the end of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and the following surgical therapy has yet to be determined. This applies also to the management of patients following complete remission.

Indexed as

Neoadjuvant TherapyAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCombined Modality TherapyDose Fractionation, RadiationFluorouracilHumansLeucovorinLymphatic MetastasisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRectal NeoplasmsRectumSurvival RateFluorouracilLeucovorin

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.