ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2024
The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in pathological T1-3N0M0 rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma: no improvement survival outcomes based on long-term survival analysis of large population data.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development and validation of survival prediction nomograms for patients with early-stage rectal cancer: a population-based study.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Neo-Adjuvant Chemo-Radiotherapy in Stage II and III Mucinous versus Non-Mucinous Rectal Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Study.Cancer management and 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, the benefits of the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (AT) in pathological low-risk rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma (RM) with T1-3N0M0 are unclear. The objective of this study is to retrospectively investigate the clinical significance of AT in terms of survival outcomes for patients with pathological T1-3N0M0 RM using data from a large population. Methods: The patient data were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. The Chi-squared test was used to analyze categorical variables. The survival curves were compared using the log-rank test and the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate proportional hazards regression (Cox) model was applied to identify the independent prognostic factors of survival outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to eliminate the differences between groups and estimate AT's effect. Results: The median follow-up duration for the rectal cancer (RC) cohort was 116 months. Multivariate analyses revealed that RM was a significant adverse prognostic factor, correlating with poorer overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) for RC [hazard ratio (HR): 1.226, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.094-1.375, P<0.001; HR: 1.446, 95% CI: 1.242-1.683, P<0.001]. Among patients with RM, the rates of 5-year OS and CSS were 68.6% and 79.3% in the AT (-) group, respectively. Additionally, the AT (+) group exhibited similar rates of 65.6% for 5-year OS and 74% for CSS (P=0.80, P=0.26). Subtype analysis according to preoperative therapy status showed that AT also did not significantly affect survival outcomes (P=0.65, P=0.34; P=0.90, P=0.76). Conclusions: Our study found that RM is a poor prognostic factor in pathological T1-3N0M0 RC. However, AT does not appear necessary to improve survival outcomes of pathological T1-3N0M0 RM.
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.