Observational studyCancer medicine2025
Long-Term Survival Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Low Rectal Cancer.
Observational study in Cancer medicine, 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.
- Long-Term Survival Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Low Rectal Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the long-term survival of patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer (LALRC), receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) versus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (ACRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective observational study included 1169 patients with LALRC (Stage II/III disease located ≤ 5 cm from the anal verge) who underwent diagnosis and treatment at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center from February 2006 to March 2021. In Stage II/III low rectal cancer patients, one-to-one matched pairs were created from the ACRT and NCRT groups using propensity score matching (PSM) based on baseline characteristics. OS and DFS were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method alongside the univariate Cox regression model.
resultsIn Stage II patients, 65 received ACRT and 107 received NCRT. For Stage III, 282 received ACRT and 715 received NCRT. After PSM, 45 paired Stage II patients and 243 paired Stage III patients were selected. In Stage II patients, there was no significant difference in OS and DFS between the groups. For Stage III, the 5- and 10-year OS rates were 79.61% and 77.67% in the NCRT group, compared to 61.08% and 44.57% in the ACRT group (p < 0.001). The 5- and 10-year DFS rates were 69.93% and 65.26% in the NCRT group, versus 48.07% and 40.77% in the ACRT group (p < 0.001). Additionally, in Stage III patients, NCRT was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death and recurrence compared to ACRT (OS: HR = 0.47, p = 0.0001; DFS: HR = 0.55, p = 0.0001).
conclusionFor patients with Stage III low rectal cancer, NCRT significantly improved the long-term DFS rate and OS rate, in comparison to adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
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.