ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2018
Survey results of US radiation oncology providers' contextual engagement of watch-and-wait beliefs after a complete clinical response to chemoradiation in patients with local rectal cancer.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2018. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of Organ Preservation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in Canada: A National Survey of Clinical Practice.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing Rectal Cancer Treatment Response Using Coregistered Endorectal Photoacoustic and US Imaging Paired with Deep Learning.Radiology · 2021Article
- Rectal Cancer Treatment Management: Deep-Learning Neural Network Based on Photoacoustic Microscopy Image Outperforms Histogram-Feature-Based Classification.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Clinical complete regression after local radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy for stage IV rectal cancer: A case report.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWatchful waiting in rectal cancer patients with a complete clinical response (cCR) to chemoradiation therapy (CRT) forgo upfront resection has been proposed. Growing evidence suggests that a watch-and-wait approach using resection for salvage of local recurrence may improve quality of life without jeopardizing outcomes. The current acceptance of watch-and-wait by US radiation oncologists (ROs) is unknown.
methodsUS ROs completed our IRB-approved anonymous e-survey regarding non-surgical management of patients who achieved a cCR to neoadjuvant CRT. Self-ranked knowledge of the OnCoRe Project-UK prospective observational study of watch-and-wait-was tested for its association with ROs' attitudes using the Chi-squared or Fisher's test, as indicated. Supporters of observation are self-identified.
resultsOf the 220 respondents, 48% (n=106) of respondents support watchful waiting and 48% claimed familiarity with the OnCoRe Project. Respondents supporting observation were more likely to be familiar with the publication (P=0.029). Among watch-and-wait supporters, 59% (n=62) felt comfortable discussing this approach and 41% preferred the conversation be initiated by other specialists. There was no association between comfort level in discussing watch-and-wait and familiarity with the OnCoRe Project. ROs treating more than 10 locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients annually felt more comfortable discussing watch-and-wait (P=0.015) compared to ROs seeing fewer patients.
conclusionsAlmost half of surveyed US ROs support watch-and-wait, though many do not feel comfortable discussing this paradigm with patients. Knowledge of the OnCoRe Project is associated with support of watch-and-wait, yet not comfort level in leading the discussion. These results inform provider attitudes toward future clinical study participation.
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.