ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2023
Determining the optimal interval between neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and surgery in rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of prolonged interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery on pathological and oncological outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Trial
- Recent advances in rectal cancer treatment - are we on the right track?Upsala journal of medical sciences · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn locally advanced rectal cancer, the optimal interval between completion of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RT-ChT) and surgical resection remains unclear due to contradictory data on the benefits of extending this interval. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to determine the impact of this interval on outcomes in patients treated for rectal cancer at our center.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 382 consecutive patients treated for stage II/III rectal cancer between October 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017. We evaluated four different cut-off points (56, 63, 70, and 77 days) to determine which had the greatest impact on treatment outcomes.
resultsThe median time between completion of RT-ChT and surgery was 67.2 days (range, 28-294). Intervals > 8 weeks (56 days) were associated with worse therapeutic outcomes. Specifically, an interval ≥ 77 days was associated with a significant decrease in overall survival (OS; 84% vs. 70%; p = 0.004), which is why we selected this interval for the comparative analysis. Several outcome variables were significantly better in the short interval (< 77 days) group, including margin involvement (5.2% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.01), sphincter preservation (78% vs. 59.3%; p = 0.003), and distant dissemination (22.6% vs. 32.5%; p = 0.04). No significant between-group differences were found in complete/nearly complete response rates (19.2% vs. 24.4%; p = 0.3). Time to surgery was statistically significant on both the univariate and multivariate analyses.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that surgery should not be delayed more than 8 weeks (56 days) after neoadjuvant treatment. An interval > 8 weeks should only be considered in patients who demonstrate a good response to neoadjuvant RT-ChT.
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.