Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34023946›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2021

Re-Irradiation in Patients with Recurrent Rectal Cancer is Safe and Feasible.

Esmée A Dijkstra, Véronique E M Mul, Patrick H J Hemmer, Klaas Havenga, Geke A P Hospers, Christina T Muijs, Boudewijn van Etten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Isotoxic stereotactic reirradiation for recurrent pelvic cancers.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Esmée A DijkstraDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Véronique E M MulDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Patrick H J HemmerDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Klaas HavengaDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Geke A P HospersDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Christina T MuijsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Boudewijn van EttenDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. b.van.etten@umcg.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no consensus yet for the best treatment regimen in patients with recurrent rectal cancer (RRC). This study aims to evaluate toxicity and oncological outcomes after re-irradiation in patients with RRC in our center. Clinical (cCR) and pathological complete response (pCR) rates and radicality were also studied.

methodsBetween January 2010 and December 2018, 61 locally advanced RRC patients were treated and analyzed retrospectively. Patients received radiotherapy at a dose of 30.0-30.6 Gy (reCRT) or 50.0-50.4 Gy chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in cases of no prior irradiation because of low-risk primary rectal cancer. In both groups, patients received capecitabine concomitantly.

resultsIn total, 60 patients received the prescribed neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy followed by surgery, 35 patients (58.3%) in the reRCT group and 25 patients (41.7%) in the long-course CRT group. There were no significant differences in overall survival (p = 0.82), disease-free survival (p = 0.63), and local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.17) between the groups. Patients in the long-course CRT group reported more skin toxicity after radiotherapy (p = 0.040). No differences were observed in late toxicity. In the long-course CRT group, a significantly higher cCR rate was observed (p = 0.029); however, there was no difference in the pCR rate (p = 0.66).

conclusionsThe treatment of RRC patients with re-irradiation is comparable to treatment with long-course CRT regarding toxicity and oncological outcomes. In the reCRT group, less cCR was observed, although there was no difference in pCR. The findings in this study suggest that it is safe and feasible to re-irradiate RRC patients.

Indexed as

Rectal NeoplasmsRe-IrradiationChemoradiotherapyHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34023946
PMCPMC8349344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.