SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 5,168 cases.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Prediction of tumor regression grading in rectal cancer neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a habitat radiomics analysis of imaging biomarker.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Oncological Outcomes and Risk Factors for Local Recurrence and Distant Metastasis After Upfront Surgery in cT3 Rectal Cancer With an Uninvolved Circumferential Resection Margin on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (Lc-NCRT) is the conventional treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). It improves R0 resection rate and reduces local recurrence rate, but it cannot improve long-term oncological outcomes. It also causes several radiotherapy-related side effects. In recent years, some studies have shown that neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) may be noninferior to Lc-NCRT. Therefore, we systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of NCT and Lc-NCRT for LARC. Methods: Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, WanFang Data, and CNKI were systematically searched as the relevant literature. The literature was screened independently by two groups, and data were extracted and evaluated for bias. A meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.4 software. The primary outcomes were tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term oncological outcomes. Results: A total of 17 studies with 5,168 cases (1,957 cases in NCT and 3,211 cases in Lc-NCRT) were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with the Lc-NCRT group, although the NCT group had a lower pCR rate [RR = 0.65, 95% CI (0.56-0.75), Conclusion: NCT is a potential option for the treatment of LARC as it is beneficial for improving the sphincter preservation rate and reducing anastomotic leakage, the long-term oncological outcome is considerable, and the safety is controllable. Larger randomized controlled trials (RCT) with longer follow-up data are needed to clarify the specific regimens of NCT and the risk stratification of rectal cancer. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/home identifier, CRD42024579586.
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.