SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2016
Defining response to radiotherapy in rectal cancer using magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological scales.
Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Profiling neoadjuvant therapy response in rectal cancer using meta-analysis of publicly available transcriptomic RNA-seq datasets.Molecular oncology · 2026Article
- MRI-Based Radiomics to Predict Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Predictive value of tumor marker index for pathological complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Deep learning analysis of MRI to assess rectal cancer treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Findings in magnetic resonance imaging for restaging locally advanced rectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Factors associated with pathological complete remission after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a real-world clinical setting.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of an Objective MRI-Based Tumor Regression Grade (mrTRG) Score and a Subjective Likert Score for Assessing Treatment Response in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancers-A Retrospective Study.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2024Article
- Watch-and-Wait Approach to Rectal Cancer: The Role of Imaging.Radiology · 2023Review
- Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphic variants C677T and A1298C in rectal cancer in Slavic population: significance for cancer risk and response to chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Lymph node regression grading of locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Review
- Neoadjuvant therapy of metformin is associated with good tumor response after preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Complete Response Evaluation of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Using Textural Features Obtained from T2 Weighted Imaging and ADC Maps.Current medical imaging · 2022Article
- Evaluation and Predictive Factors of Complete Response in Rectal Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- MRI T2-weighted sequences-based texture analysis (TA) as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).La Radiologia medica · 2020Article
- Staging of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Beyond TME.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020Review
- Article
- Response evaluation after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer using modern MR imaging: a pictorial review.Insights into imaging · 2019Review
- Creation of a rectal cancer registry in Italy by the Advanced International Mini-Invasive Surgery (AIMS) academy clinical research network.F1000Research · 2019Article
- Article
- Morphologic predictors of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.Oncotarget · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo define good and poor regression using pathology and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) regression scales after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer.
methodsA systematic review was performed on all studies up to December 2015, without language restriction, that were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960-2015), and EMBASE (1991-2015). Searches were performed of article bibliographies and conference abstracts. MeSH and text words used included "tumour regression", "mrTRG", "poor response" and "colorectal cancers". Clinical studies using either MRI or histopathological tumour regression grade (TRG) scales to define good and poor responders were included in relation to outcomes [local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS)]. There was no age restriction or stage of cancer restriction for patient inclusion. Data were extracted by two authors working independently and using pre-defined outcome measures.
resultsQuantitative data (prevalence) were extracted and analysed according to meta-analytical techniques using comprehensive meta-analysis. Qualitative data (LR, DR, DFS and OS) were presented as ranges. The overall proportion of poor responders after neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) was 37.7% (95%CI: 30.1-45.8). There were 19 different reported histopathological scales and one MRI regression scale (mrTRG). Clinical studies used nine and six histopathological scales for poor and good responders, respectively. All studies using MRI to define good and poor response used one scale. The most common histopathological definition for good response was the Mandard grades 1 and 2 or Dworak grades 3 and 4; Mandard 3, 4 and 5 and Dworak 0, 1 and 2 were used for poor response. For histopathological grades, the 5-year outcomes for poor responders were LR 3.4%-4.3%, DR 14.3%-20.3%, DFS 61.7%-68.1% and OS 60.7-69.1. Good pathological response 5-year outcomes were LR 0%-1.8%, DR 0%-11.6%, DFS 78.4%-86.7%, and OS 77.4%-88.2%. A poor response on MRI (mrTRG 4,5) resulted in 5-year LR 4%-29%, DR 9%, DFS 31%-59% and OS 27%-68%. The 5-year outcomes with a good response on MRI (mrTRG 1,2 and 3) were LR 1%-14%, DR 3%, DFS 64%-83% and OS 72%-90%.
conclusionFor histopathology regression assessment, Mandard 1, 2/Dworak 3, 4 should be used for good response and Mandard 3, 4, 5/Dworak 0, 1, 2 for poor response. MRI indicates good and poor response by mrTRG1-3 and mrTRG4-5, respectively.
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.