Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25526442›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2014

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lei Huang, Tuan-Jie Li, Jian-Wen Zhang, Sha Liu, Bin-Sheng Fu, Wei Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy without Radiation in Colorectal Cancer.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Transglutaminase 2 in cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2015
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lei HuangFrom the Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Liver Disease Research, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510630, Guangdong Province, China (LH, TJL, WL); Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230022, Anhui Province, China (LH); Organ Transplantation Center, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510630, Guangdong Province, China (BSF, JWZ).
Tuan-Jie Li
Jian-Wen Zhang
Sha Liu
Bin-Sheng Fu
Wei Liu
JW Medical Systems (China) · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on colorectal cancer (CRC) have been largely studied, while its survival and surgical benefits remain controversial. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing efficacy and safety of NAC plus surgery with surgery alone (SA) for CRC. We searched systematically databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing NAC and surgery with SA for treating CRC. References of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Primary outcomes included overall and disease-free survivals, total and perioperative mortalities, recurrence, and metastasis. Meta-analysis was performed where possible comparing parameters using relative risks (RRs). Safely analysis was then performed. Outcomes for stages II and III tumors were also meta-analyzed, respectively. Our study was conducted according to intention-to-treat analysis. A total of 6 RCTs comparing NAC (n=1393) with SA (n=1358) published from 2002 to 2012 were identified. Compared with SA, NAC tended to reduce overall recurrences (21.86% vs 25.15%, RR: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-1.56, P=0.09), and prevent vascular invasion (32.30% vs 43.12%, RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.53-1.00, P=0.05); and significantly lowered distant metastasis (15.58% vs 23.80%, RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.50-0.86, P=0.002), especially liver metastasis rate (13.00% vs 18.25%, RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.51-0.99, P=0.04), and associated with higher incidence of ypT0-2 cases upon resection (13.04% vs 6.42%, RR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.02-5.44, P=0.04). All other parameters were comparable. NAC-related side-effects were generally mild. NAC mainly benefited patients with stage III disease. NAC could prevent recurrence and metastasis, associates with better tumor stages upon resection, and potentially impedes vascular invasion among CRC patients. NAC does not contribute to significant survival benefits for CRC, and compares favorably with SA in tumor-free resection rates, nodal status upon resection, and postsurgical complications. This level 1a evidence does not support NAC to obviously outweigh SA in terms of survival and surgical benefits for CRC currently.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntineoplastic AgentsChemotherapy, AdjuvantColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyPrognosisAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID25526442
PMCPMC4603078
OpenAlexW1990755784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.