ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Comparison of immunotherapy based total neoadjuvant therapy or standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer: a multi-institutional retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Combining radiation therapy with immunotherapy produces a synergistic effect in patients with microsatellite stable/mismatch repair-proficient (MSS/pMMR) locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes and safety of immunotherapy combined with long-course chemoradiotherapy (ICIs + nCRT) versus immunotherapy combined with total neoadjuvant therapy (ICIs + TNT). Methods: This retrospective study collected clinical data of adult patients with clinical T3-4 and/or N1 rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent ICIs + TNT or ICIs + nCRT followed by curative surgery at four medical centers between March 2020 and August 2021. The study compared clinical efficacy, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) at 3 years postoperatively, and adverse event. Results: Among 211 enrolled patients, 89 (42%) received ICIs + TNT, while 122 (58%) underwent ICIs + nCRT, with a median age of 56.0 years (range, 20.0-75.0 years). The ICIs + TNT group had a higher median number of resected lymph nodes (15.0 [range, 4.0-37.0] vs. 13.0 [range, 3.0-33.0], Conclusions: Overall, ICIs + TNT demonstrated therapeutic efficacy and a safety profile comparable to ICIs + nCRT in patients with LARC and MSS/pMMR status. Although ICIs + TNT achieved numerically higher downstaging rates, it was not associated with improved survival outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of refining patient selection criteria and making judicious treatment decisions to enhance the prognosis of individuals with rectal cancer.
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.