SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2025
Short- and long-term outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Perioperative Tumor Marker Dynamics and Postoperative Recovery in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Resection for Rectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Robotic vs. 3D laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study of short-term outcomes and functional recovery.Frontiers in surgery · 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
Abstract
background and purposeNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) is the standard treatment regimen for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) but has unavoidable radiation toxicity. With the advent of more optimized chemotherapy regimens, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is sometimes offered as an alternative to NACRT. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of NAC and NACRT for LARC patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsEligible studies through June 15, 2023, were identified in the online databases. Short-term and long-term outcomes were synthesized. A total of 10 studies involving 14,807 patients (1714 vs. 13093) were included in this meta-analysis.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, R0 resection, local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, or grade 3-4 adverse events. The NAC group had a lower rate of pathological complete response [OR (95% CI) = 0.61 (0.45, 0.82)] and tumor regression grade [OR (95% CI) = 0.42 (0.25, 0.70)] and a greater rate of sphincter preservation [OR (95% CI) = 1.57 (1.14, 2.16)] than did the NACRT group. In the prospective studies, no differences in pathological complete response [OR (95% CI) = 0.62 (0.35, 1.11)], tumor regression grade [OR (95% CI) = 0.72 (0.52, 1.00)], and rate of sphincter preservation [OR (95% CI) = 1.40 (0.94, 2.09)] have been found between the two groups.
conclusionNAC was able to achieve similar short- and long-term outcomes as NACRT. It is worth noting that some prospective studies excluded patients with high-risk features. For those LARC patients with high-risk features, the efficacy of NAC versus NACRT needs to be further explored.
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.