SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2023
A Meta-analysis of Total Neoadjuvant Therapies Combining Chemoradiotherapy with Induction or Consolidated Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Versus Long-Course Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Real-World Tumor Response and Clinical Outcomes.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Perioperative Tumor Marker Dynamics and Postoperative Recovery in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Resection for Rectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Predictive value of a nomogram model for treatment response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Selecting a TNT Schedule in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: Can We Predict Who Actually Benefits?Cancers · 2023Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTotal neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) combining chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with chemotherapy (CT) was a novel pre-surgical approach to cancer treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between neoadjuvant CRT (nCRT) with induction CT and nCRT with consolidated CT in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients.
methodIn July 2022, a literature search was conducted using the following public databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, retrieved all relevant articles comparing nCRT-combining induction CT with nCRT-combining-consolidated CT treatments for LARC patients.
resultsFour eligible studies were identified, including a total of 995 LARC patients: 473 in the nCRT with consolidated CT group and 522 in the nCRT with induction CT group. The organ preservation (OP) rate of the nCRT with consolidated CT group was higher than that of the nCRT with induction CT group (RR [relative risk]: 1.53; 95% CI (confidence interval): 1.09-2.14). The pathological complete response (PCR, RR: 1.22; 95% CI 0.37-2.17), the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS, RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.71-1.46), the local recurrence (LR, RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.52-1.85), rates of R0 resection (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.10), compliance (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.12-2.26), and grade 3--4 toxicities (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.57-1.06) were all similar between the two groups.
conclusionIn this meta-analysis of TNT regimens for rectal cancer, consolidative CT following nCRT was associated with similar PCR, 3-year DFS, LR, R0 resection, compliance, and grade 3-4 toxicities compared to induction CT prior to nCRT but a higher rate of organ preservation.
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.