ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Risk Factors for Regrowth After Nonoperative Management for Rectal Cancer.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. 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.
- Total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer in Spain: results from a national patterns-of-care survey by the SEOR-GI Group.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- [Local regrowth: what are the surgical options?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Rectal Cancer Watch-and-Wait Management of Patients With Tumors Within Versus Beyond the Reach of Digital Rectal Examination.Annals of surgical 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmong patients with rectal cancer who achieve a complete clinical response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy and undergo nonoperative management (NOM), a subset experience tumor regrowth and require salvage surgery. We sought to identify clinicopathologic factors associated with tumor regrowth to assist in patient selection for NOM.
methodsPatients treated for rectal cancer at a single National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in whom NOM was pursued based on cCR or near-cCR were identified. Patients were stratified based on whether they developed tumor regrowth during follow-up. Tumor and treatment details were compared to identify factors affecting regrowth-free survival (RFS).
resultsAmong 125 patients, 26 (20.8%) experienced local regrowth and 8 (6.4%) experienced distant metastasis at a median follow-up of 35 months. Extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) and clinically positive pelvic sidewall lymph nodes (PSW) were associated with worse RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-5.72, p = 0.03; HR 2.77, 95% CI 1.16-6.61, p = 0.002). Among 107 patients eligible for post hoc endoscopic evaluation, those with cCR (n = 80) at first endoscopic re-evaluation had trended towards higher RFS than those with near-cCR (n = 27; HR 2.12, 95% CI 0.95-4.75, p = 0.07), with a significant difference in patients without regrowth at 1 year (HR 5.58, 95% CI 1.23-25.32, p = 0.03).
conclusionsRectal cancer patients with high-risk magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features, namely EMVI and positive PSW nodes, are more likely to experience tumor regrowth despite an excellent clinical response. Patients with a near-complete endoscopic response may also be at higher risk of later regrowth. The decision to attempt NOM should be carefully weighed against the increased risk of tumor regrowth.
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.