ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2020
Adjuvant chemotherapy in curatively resected rectal cancer: How valid are the data?
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- A management of patients achieving clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy and perspectives: on locally advanced rectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Re-evaluation of controversial issues in the treatment of cT3N0-2 rectal cancer: a 10-year cohort analysis using propensity-score matching.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccording to the result of the Cochrane review published in 2012, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) is associated with a survival benefit for rectal cancer patients operated for cure in comparison to patients who underwent only the surgical resection.
aimTo analyze the quality of the data supporting the advantage of adjuvant CTx after surgery for rectal cancer. In the times of increasing health care costs, it is imperative to offer the patient an evidence-based therapy that justifies potential side effects as well as costs.
methodsOverall survival was selected as endpoint of interest. Among the 21 included papers which analyzed this endpoint, we identified those three publications which have the highest weights to influence the final result. The validity of these papers was analyzed using the CONSORT checklist for randomized controlled trials. We performed a second meta-analysis excluding the three analyzed studies (
resultsThe detailed analysis of the three most relevant RCTs according to the items of the CONSORT checklist showed several pitfalls. In up to 47% of the items, inappropriate answers were found. Generally, a lack of information regarding the randomization procedure as well as the absence of allocation concealment, blinded set-up, of intention-to-treat analysis and omission of sample size calculation were common problems of the analyzed studies. The exclusion of these three studies from the meta-analysis did not affect the general result of the meta-analysis, still confirming a survival advantage after adjuvant chemotherapy. After exclusion of single studies with a statistically significant outcome improvement, the meta-analysis of the remaining 16 studies again shows a statistically significant result due in part to a large remaining sample size.
conclusionThe three most powerful publications show substantial deficits. We suggest a more critical appraisal regarding the validity of single studies because a meta-analysis cannot overcome the limitations of individual trials by pooling treatment effect estimates to generate a single best estimate.
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.