ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2024
Compare clinical efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: Meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of survival prediction nomograms for patients with early-stage rectal cancer: a population-based study.Translational cancer research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the efficacy and safety of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in the treatment of middle and low locally advanced rectal cancer. Our study will systematically collect and integrate studies to evaluate the ability of these two treatments to improve tumor shrinkage rates, surgical resection rates, tumor-free survival, and severe adverse events.
aimTo provide clinicians and patients with more reliable treatment options to optimize treatment outcomes and quality of life for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two treatment options.
methodsA full search of all clinical studies on the effectiveness and safety of TNT and nCRT for treating locally advanced rectal cancer identified in Chinese (CNKI, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database) and English (PubMed, Embase) databases was performed. Two system assessors independently screened the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality evaluation and data extraction were performed for the included literature. We used RevMan 5.3 software to perform a meta-analysis of the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, T stage degradation rate, resection 0 (R0) rate, anal grade 3/4 acute toxicity rate, perioperative complications, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) in the TNT and nCRT groups.
resultsFinally, 14 studies were included, six of which were randomized controlled studies. A total of 3797 patients were included, including 1865 in the TNT group and 1932 in the nCRT group. The two sets of baseline data were comparable. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the pCR rate [odds ratio (OR) = 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30-1.90,
conclusionTNT has greater clinical efficacy and safety than nCRT in the treatment of locally advanced 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.