ReviewInternational journal of clinical oncology2015
Recent advances in multidisciplinary approach for rectal cancer.
Review in International journal of clinical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized phase III trial comparing surgery alone to UFT + PSK for stage II rectal cancer (JFMC38 trial).Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2018Trial
- Lateral node metastasis in low rectal cancer as a hallmark to predict recurrence patterns.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Identification of potential metabolic biomarkers of rectal cancer and of the effect of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy.PloS one · 2021Article
- Rectal Cancer in Asian vs. Western Countries: Why the Variation in Incidence?Current treatment options in oncology · 2017Review
- Impact of Intraoperative Blood Loss on the Survival of Patients With Stage II/III Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgery is a major treatment option for rectal cancer, and total mesorectal excision has been demonstrated to be advantageous in terms of oncological outcome and thus has been the standard surgical approach. Radiotherapy before or after radical surgery is the optimal treatment to control local recurrence of advanced rectal cancer. To date, in many countries, the combination of neoadjuvant concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy is considered the standard therapy. A more recent interest in neoadjuvant therapy has been the use of oxaliplatin or targeted agents for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. However, despite many trials of oxaliplatin and targeted agents, 5-FU-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy has remained the only standard treatment option. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or induction chemotherapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy may further improve patient survival, as some clinical studies recently indicated. In Japan, neoadjuvant therapy is not the standard treatment method, because surgery with lateral lymph node dissection is usually performed and this type of surgery may reduce recurrence rate as does radiation therapy. The phase III study to evaluate the oncological effect of the Japanese standard operation (mesorectal excision, ME) with lateral lymph node dissection in comparison with ME alone for clinical stage II and III lower rectal cancer is currently ongoing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.