ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2022
Optimized tools and timing of response reassessment after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in rectal cancer.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrepancies between clinical and radiological assessment of complete remission of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Rectal-RadioSAM: Large model-assisted multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging pipeline for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer without human intervention.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Postchemoradiotherapy Watch-and-Wait Strategy in Patients With Rectal Cancer: A 20-Year, Single-Center Study.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Enhancing clinical complete response assessment in rectal cancer: integrating transanal multipoint full-layer puncture biopsy criteria: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- A management of patients achieving clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy and perspectives: on locally advanced rectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeReassessment tools of response to long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment (nCRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) are important in predicting complete response (CR) and thus deciding whether a wait-and-watch strategy can be implemented in these patients. Choosing which routine reassessment tools are optimal and when to use them is still unclear and will be researched in the study.
methodsAltogether, 250 patients with LARC who received nCRT from 2013 to 2021 and were followed up were retrospectively reviewed. Common reassessment tools of response included digital rectal examination (DRE), clinical examination and symptoms, endoscopy, biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and blood biomarkers.
resultsOverall, 27.20% (68/250) patients had a complete response and 72.80% (182/250) did not. The combination of MRI, endoscopy, and biopsy showed the best performance in terms of accuracy of 74% and area under the curve (AUC, 0.714, 95% CI 0.546-0.882). Reassessing through DRE and presence of symptoms failed to improve the efficacy of response reassessment. After 100 days, biopsy as an assessment tool would obtain a substantial rise in accuracy from 51.28 to 100% (p = 0.003).
conclusionThe combination of MRI, endoscopy, and biopsy is suitable as the reassessment tool of response for applying a wait-and-watch strategy after long-course nCRT in patients with LARC. The accuracy of biopsy as reassessment tools would be improved if they were used over 100 days after nCRT in patients with rectal cancer.
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.