ArticleJAMA oncology2025
Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.
Article in JAMA oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in proficient MMR rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with or without PD-1 inhibitors in MMR-proficient non-metastatic rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Pilot Randomized Trial of a Supportive Care Intervention for Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2026Trial
- Multicenter phase II study of neoadjuvant FOLFOXIRI followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy in Chinese patients with high-risk rectal cancer.The oncologist · 2026Trial
- Short-Term Outcomes of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Patients With and Without Preoperative Neoadjuvant Therapy.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Differential Association of Visceral and Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue with Treatment Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ensuring High-Quality Rectal Cancer Surgery in an Era of Increasing Treatment Complexity.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination with total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer.The British journal of surgery · 2026Review
- Benefit-risk balance of S-1 versus UFT as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer (JFMC35-C1: ACTS-RC).The oncologist · 2026Article
- Locoregional and systemic control after total neoadjuvant therapy with short-course radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: long-term outcomes from the LARCT-US study.The British journal of surgery · 2026Observational
- Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer: Why Japan Says "Not Yet".Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Mitochondrial fitness in circulating T cells predicts neoadjuvant therapy response in locally advanced colorectal cancer.Gastroenterology report · 2026Article
- Comparative study of triple intravenous chemotherapy versus dual chemotherapy combined with hepatic arterial infusion in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The Role of Organ Sparing Approaches After Total Neoadjuvant Treatment in Rectal Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- Higher local recurrence as the distinct failure pattern in early-onset rectal cancer: a tailored MRI score to guide therapy.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Error in Author Affiliation.JAMA oncology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
70 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: This was a clinical study of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) for rectal cancer. Objective: To assess the use and outcomes of TNT in routine practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, multicenter study was conducted at 61 centers across 21 countries and included consecutive patients treated off trial with TNT for stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma from September 2012 to December 2023. Data were analyzed between August and October 2024. Exposure: TNT, defined as the delivery of radiotherapy and nonradiosensitizing chemotherapy before surgery or watch and wait. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was type of TNT administered. Secondary outcomes were patient characteristics, treatment adherence, safety, and efficacy overall and by type of TNT in the entire population and after propensity vector matching. Results: A total of 1585 patients (588 female [37.1%]; median [IQR] age, 61 [53-68] years) were included, 1260 (79.5%) of whom had 1 or more high-risk features (eg, cT4, cN2, extramural venous invasion, threatened/involved mesorectal fascia, and lateropelvic lymphadenopathy). Patients were treated with the PRODIGE 23-like regimen (FOLFIRINOX/FOLFOXIRI followed by long-course chemoradiotherapy) (271 [17.7%]), RAPIDO-like regimen (short-course radiotherapy followed by consolidation FOLFOX/CAPOX) (529 [33.4%]), OPRA induction-like (induction FOLFOX/CAPOX followed by long-course chemoradiotherapy) (190 [12.0%]), OPRA consolidation-like (long-course chemoradiotherapy followed by consolidation FOLFOX/CAPOX) (257 [16.2%]), and other regimens (360 [22.7%]). After TNT, 192 (12.1%) underwent watch and wait, and 30 (1.9%) underwent local excision. Pathological or clinical complete response was reported in 23.2% of cases. At treatment failure, 8.5% was local and 16.4% was distant progression. Three-year event-free survival (EFS) was 68% (95% CI, 64%-71%), and 5-year overall survival (OS) was 79% (95% CI, 75%-83%). In the overall population, patients treated with the PRODIGE 23-like regimen were most likely to have serious adverse events (61 [23.5%]) but had better local control and survival outcomes than those treated with the RAPIDO-like (EFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.95; P = .03; OS: HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.97; P = .04), OPRA induction-like (EFS: HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.98; P = .04; OS: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18-0.70; P = .003), and OPRA consolidation-like (EFS: HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93; P = .02; OS: HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.25-1.00; P = .05) regimens. In the matched population (928 patients [58.5%]), no differences in survival outcomes were observed between the TNT regimens. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this case series study show substantial variation in the choice of the TNT regimen and were overall aligned with those reported in clinical trials, suggesting the efficacy of TNT in a clinical setting regardless of the specific regimen.
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.