ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Risk stratification of stage II rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma to predict the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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.
- The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on safety and long-term survival in patients with locally advanced colon cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- A nomogram for predicting cancer-specific survival in patients with rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma following surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The treatment strategy for stage II rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma (RMA) recommends neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCR) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). However, the necessity of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) remains controversial. Materials and methods: Chi-square test was used to assess the relationship between pathological classification, AC and clinicopathological characteristics. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and the log-rank test were utilized to analyze differences in overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) among different groups. Cox regression identified prognostic factors. Nomogram was established utilizing the independent prognostic factors. X-tile divided patients into three risk subgroups. Results: Compared to RMA, rectal adenocarcinoma (RA) demonstrates longer OS and CSS in all and non-AC stage II patients, with no difference in OS and CSS for AC stage II patients. Propensity score matching analyses yielded similar results. Stratified analysis found that AC both improve OS of RA and RMA patients. Age, gender, pathologic T stage, regional nodes examined, and tumor size were identified as independent prognostic factors for RMA patients without AC. A nomogram was constructed to generate risk scores and categorize RMA patients into three subgroups based on these scores. KM curves revealed AC benefits for moderate and high-risk groups but not for the low-risk group. The external validation cohort yielded similar results. Conclusions: In summary, our study suggests that, compared to stage II RA patients, stage II RMA patients benefit more from AC after NCR. AC is recommended for moderate and high-risk stage II RMA patients after NCR, whereas low-risk patients do not require AC.
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.