ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025
Implementation of Organ Preservation for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in Canada: A National Survey of Clinical Practice.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOrgan preservation (OP) is an increasingly recognized treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, variability in patient selection, treatment regimens, and surveillance can hinder widespread adoption. We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey evaluating how OP is implemented across Canada.
methodsBetween June and July 2023, surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists with expertise in OP from all 44 Canadian radiation centers completed an electronic survey about the implementation of OP at their centers. Primary OP was defined as administering neoadjuvant therapy with the explicit goal of avoiding surgery. Secondary OP was defined as deferring planned surgery only when there was an unexpected yet sufficient clinical response.
resultsResponses from 40 radiation centers (response rate 90.9%) identified that 20 (50.0%) offered primary and secondary OP, 11 (27.8%) offered only secondary, and 8 (20.0%) offered neither. The most common treatment in primary OP was chemoradiation with consolidation chemotherapy (17/20, 89.5%). When assessing the response in primary OP, endoscopic biopsies were more commonly performed with a near-complete response (10/20, 50.0%) than a complete response (4/20, 20.0%). Watch-and-wait surveillance was more frequently offered for a complete response (17/31, 54.8%) than a near-complete response (4/31, 12.9%). Challenges included limited MRI (21/40, 52.5%), clinic time (18/40, 45.0%), timely surgery if required (16/40, 40.0%), and limited familiarity with the protocols and evidence (15/40, 37.5%).
conclusionOP is recognized nationwide but is inconsistently implemented. Challenges raise concerns about the current feasibility of OP in Canada and highlight the need for less resource-intensive, complex OP protocols.
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.