Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39427077›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2024

Assessing the practice of total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: an online survey among radiation oncology departments in Germany and German-speaking regions of Austria and Switzerland.

Stefan Knippen, Guido Hildebrandt, Florian Putz, Lasse Leon Gossé, Jörg-Peter Ritz, Marciana-Nona Duma

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival in ypT0-2 N0 rectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025
    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.

Stefan KnippenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Helios Clinics of Schwerin-University Campus of MSH Medical School Hamburg, Schwerin, Germany.
Guido HildebrandtDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Florian PutzDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Lasse Leon GosséDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Helios Clinics of Schwerin-University Campus of MSH Medical School Hamburg, Schwerin, Germany.
Jörg-Peter RitzDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Helios Clinics of Schwerin-University Campus of MSH Medical School Hamburg, Schwerin, Germany.
Marciana-Nona DumaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Helios Clinics of Schwerin-University Campus of MSH Medical School Hamburg, Schwerin, Germany. marciana-nona.duma@medicalschool-hamburg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) of rectal cancer improves rates of pathological complete remission and progression-free survival. With improved clinical response rates, interest grew in a non-operative approach/watch and wait (WaW) for this disease. In 2020, the working groups of ACO/AIO/ARO published a consensus statement on the use of TNT, including a non-operative approach. However, the best combination scheme remains unclear. Despite the increasing use of TNT, there is a lack of comprehensive data on its current implementation and practices. To address this knowledge gap, a multicenter survey was conducted to capture the use of TNT protocols in German-speaking radiotherapy departments. At the beginning of 2023, a GDPR-compliant online survey was conducted in Germany, Austria, and German-speaking Switzerland. The questionnaire comprised 43 questions covering various aspects of TNT, including chemotherapy and WaW concepts. Most respondents (98.4%) confirmed awareness of the consensus on TNT for rectal cancer. Institutions treated an average of 30.22 rectal cancer patients annually. Most respondents (76.2%) reported treating over 80% of patients neoadjuvantly. Regarding TNT, 33.3% treated 21-50% with such a protocol. No significant association was found between the institution type and TNT application. In 62/63 cases, tumor board discussion was standard before offering TNT. VMAT was the predominant technique (82.5%). For rectal cancer dosing, the 50/50.4Gy scheme was most common, followed by 45Gy with a boost and the 5 × 5Gy scheme. Dosing schemes for TNT varied slightly, with more participants reporting the use of 5 × 5Gy compared to radiation therapy for rectal cancer in general. CBCT was the primary IGRT method (88.9%). Larger hospitals typically administered chemotherapy themselves, while private practices collaborated with medical oncologists (p < 0.0001). The most common concurrent chemotherapy drugs were 5-fluorouracil/capecitabine (64.4%) and oxaliplatin (37.3%). A WaW strategy was reported to be institutional implemented by 63.8%. The timing of offering WaW was split, with 50% offering it after radiochemotherapy and 47% during the informed consent talk. For planned WaW, 62% prefer normofractionated TNT. TNT appears to be widely implemented in the German-speaking radio-oncological community, regardless of the type of institution. Image-guided therapy, multidisciplinary team decisions, and internal guidelines play an important role. TNT seems to have already altered treatment protocols for rectal cancer toward an organ-preserving approach in selected cases. In these WaW cases, normofractionation appears to be preferred over hypofractionation.

Indexed as

Neoadjuvant TherapyRectal NeoplasmsAustriaGermanyHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Radiation OncologySurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandOnlineRadiationRectal cancerSurveyTNTWatchfull waiting

Identifiers

PMID39427077
PMCPMC11490463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.