ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2024
Does stage III rectal mucinous adenocarcinoma benefit from neoadjuvant chemoradiation?
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 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.
- Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of patients with mucinous adenocarcinoma originating from the left colon, right colon, or rectum: a nationwide retrospective study in China.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of patients with clinical stage III mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma (M) and non-mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma (NM) and evaluate the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. It was hypothesized that patients with M would fare worse with neoadjuvant chemoradiation than those with NM and that patients with M and NM not receiving chemoradiation would have similar outcomes. Moreover, it was hypothesized that patients with M would have similar outcomes regardless of chemoradiation.
methodsThis study compares eligible patients distributed in three cohorts: (cohort 1) M versus NM, including only patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation; (cohort 2) M versus NM, including only patients treated without neoadjuvant chemoradiation; and (cohort 3) only M patients treated with versus without neoadjuvant chemoradiation.
resultsWe identified 515 patients with an average age of 58.8 (SD 12.4) years, and 30% were female. Fifty-seven (11.1%) patients had M and 458 (88.9%) had NM. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was administered to 382 (74%) patients, of whom 41 (10.7%) were M and 341 (89.3%) NM. In cohort 1, patients with M had advanced pathological staging (stage 3: M 68% vs. NM 42%; p < 0.001), worse pathological differentiation (poor: M, 37% vs. NM, 11%; p = 0.001), more involved lymph nodes (M 0 [0;7] vs. NM 0 [0;1]; p < 0.001) and a higher rate of local recurrence (M 22% vs. 3%; p < 0.001). Patients with M demonstrated worse 7-year cancer-specific (p = 0.007) and overall survival (p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in cohort 2 and 3.
conclusionPatients with clinical stage III mucinous adenocarcinomas may not benefit as much from standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation as their non-mucinous counterparts do.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39480585What 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.