ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2022
[Complete response after neoadjuvant therapy of rectal cancer: implications for surgery].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal Treatment of Rectal Cancer.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2022Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For (locally advanced) rectal cancer, a multimodal therapy concept comprising neoadjuvant radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy, radical surgical resection with partial/complete mesorectal excision and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy represents the current international standard of care. Further developments in neoadjuvant therapy concepts, such as the principle of total neoadjuvant therapy, lead to an increasing number of patients who show a complete clinical response in restaging after neoadjuvant therapy without clinically detectable residual tumor. In view of the risk associated with radical surgical resection in terms of perioperative morbidity and a potentially non-continence-preserving procedure, the question of the oncological justifiability of an organ-preserving procedure in the case of a complete clinical response under neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being raised. The therapeutic principle of watch and wait, defined by refraining from immediate radical surgical resection and inclusion in a close-meshed, structured follow-up program, currently appears to be oncologically justifiable based on the current study situation; however, for the initial evaluation of the extent of the clinical response and for the structuring of the close-meshed follow-up program, further optimization and standardization based on broadly designed studies appear necessary in order to be able to provide this concept to a clearly defined patient collective as an oncologically equivalent therapy principle also outside specialized centers.
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.