SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2018
Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy Versus No Radiotherapy for Stage IV Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Locally advanced mid/low rectal cancer with synchronous resectable liver metastases: systematic review of the available strategies and outcome.Updates in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Meta analysis of the second course of radiotherapy for recurrent esophageal cancer1.Journal of X-ray science and technology · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of radiotherapy for local control in T3N0 rectal cancer managed with total mesorectal excision: a meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2022Pooled it
- Survival impact of radiotherapy for patients with de novo metastatic rectal cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- Optimizing the Personalized Care for the Management of Rectal Cancer: A Consensus Statement.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to review the contemporary evidence comparing neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NRT) versus no radiotherapy (no RT) in patients with stage IV rectal cancer.
methodsLiterature was searched for studies using the following databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, Science Direct, Scopus, ASCOpubs, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Studies reporting outcomes for stage IV rectal cancer patients who underwent NRT or no RT were selected.
resultsA total of eight studies were included in this review (one RCT, five retrospective cohorts, two population-based studies). The only RCT in this review reported no significant difference in 2- and 5-year local recurrence (NRT versus no RT) 10.1% versus 23.8%, and 15.9% versus 26.9%, respectively. However, multivariate analysis showed the effect of treatment might not have differed between subgroups according to stage. Pooled analysis from five retrospective studies showed significantly improved local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) with NRT (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.31, p = 0.03), which was maintained in the subgroup who underwent metastasectomy. (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.01-1.37, p = 0.04). Pooled 5-year overall survival (OS) showed a statistically significant benefit with NRT (RR 1.47; 95% CI 1.14-1.89, p = 0.003), which was not seen in the subgroup who underwent metastasectomy (RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.94-1.82, p = 0.11).
conclusionThe current available evidence shows an LRFS benefit with NRT over no RT in patients with stage IV rectal cancer. The review also suggests a possible OS benefit with NRT, although this finding should be interpreted with caution.
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.