Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39379611›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2024

Local excision versus total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer patients with clinical complete or near-complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Lu Jin, Kuo Zheng, Yonggang Hong, Enda Yu, Liqiang Hao, Wei Zhang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Local excision in rectal cancer: When and for whom?World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lu Jin *Department of Anorectal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Kuo Zheng *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Jinling Hospital of Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210016, Jiangsu, China.
Yonggang HongDepartment of Anorectal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Enda YuDepartment of Anorectal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China.
Liqiang HaoDepartment of Anorectal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China. hao_liqiang@139.com.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Anorectal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China. weizhang2000cn@163.com.

Funding

National Nature Science Foundation of China 82072750
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLocal excision is an effective approach for managing rectal cancer exhibiting substantial regression after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes between local excision and total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients achieving clinical complete or near-complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study that includes a consecutive series of rectal cancer patients who responded well to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. A total of 180 rectal cancer patients at a single institution during a 12-year period are included. The main outcomes include short-term outcomes, oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes between the two groups.

resultsA total of 180 patients were included in the study. Sixty-one (33.9%) received local excision and 119 (66.1%) received total mesorectal excision. The baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the two groups. The local excision group demonstrated a significantly shorter operative time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001). 3-year overall survival rates were 97.5% (95% CI, 0.93-1.00) and 95.5% (95% CI, 0.91-1.00) between the two groups (p = 0.38). The local excision group exhibited significantly higher 3-year local recurrence rates 15.7% (95% CI, 0.74-0.97) vs 4.2% (95% CI, 0.92-1.00) (p = 0.017), yet lower 3-year distant metastasis rates 9.6% (95% CI, 0.82-1.00) vs 12.6% (95% CI, 0.81-0.94) (p = 0.33) and lower 3-year disease-free survival rates 76.8% (95% CI, 0.64-0.92) vs 84.7% (95% CI, 0.78-0.92) (p = 0.56) comparing with the total mesorectal excision group. The local excision group demonstrated significantly better functional outcomes compared with the total mesorectal excision group (p < 0.001).

conclusionPatients who achieve either clinical complete or near-complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy are suitable candidates for local excision. The local excision group demonstrated superior short-term and functional outcomes, and the oncological outcomes were not compromised.

Indexed as

Neoadjuvant TherapyRectal NeoplasmsAdultAgedChemoradiotherapyDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeClinical complete responseClinical near-complete responseLocal excisionNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapyRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID39379611
PMCPMC11461786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.