ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Preoperative Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: Phase II Randomized Study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02301481 (A Prospective, Randomized Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Compared With Concomitant Boost Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy With S-1 in Locally Advanced Gastric Adenocarcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 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.
A Prospective, Randomized Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Compared With Concomitant Boost Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy With S-1 in Locally Advanced Gastric Adenocarcinoma
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal neoadjuvant regimens for locally advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors Increase Pathological Complete Response in Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Survival and complications after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Radiation Therapy for Gastric Cancer: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline.Practical radiation oncologyGuideline
- A prospective phase II clinical trial of total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Discontinuation of neoadjuvant therapy does not influence postoperative short-term outcomes in elderly patients (≥ 70 years) with resectable gastric cancer: a population-based study from the dutch upper gastrointestinal cancer audit (DUCA) data.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety of perioperative therapy for locally resectable gastric cancer: A network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Systemic immunoinflammatory index and prognostic nutrition index for predicting pathologic responses of patients with advanced gastric cancer after neoadjuvant therapy for advanced gastric cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2024Article
- Neoadjuvant PD-1 inhibitor and apatinib combined with S-1 plus oxaliplatin for locally advanced gastric cancer patients: a multicentered, prospective, cohort study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) in a single-center randomized phase II trial. Methods: Patients with LAGC were enrolled and received either NACT or NACRT, followed by gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was an R0 resection rate. Results: We enrolled 75 patients: 75.7% (NACT, 28/37 patients) and 76.3% (NACRT, 29/38 patients) underwent surgery; R0 resection rates were 73.0% (27/37) and 73.7% (28/38), respectively. The NACRT group had significantly better major pathological response than the NACT group (37.9% vs 17.9%, p = 0.019). Between-group postoperative complications were not significantly different. The median follow-up was 59.6 months; 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 50.1% (NACT) and 61.9% (NACRT); neither group reached the median OS; median progression-free survival was 37.3 and 63.4 months, respectively. Conclusions: S-1-based NACRT did not improve the R0 resection rate, although it presented better tumor regression with similar safety to NACT. Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT02301481.
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.