ArticleBMC cancer2025
Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in locally advanced rectal cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) could achieve outcomes comparable to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and reduced radiation toxicity, radiotherapy is questioned. Comparing nCRT and nCT in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) in the real world to identify patient subgroups that may benefit most from each approach.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with rectal cancer located within 10 cm from the anal verge and clinical staging of T2N + M0 or T3-4NanyM0. Patients were stratified into the nCRT group, which received radiotherapy (45.0 to 50.4 Gy/25 or 28 fractions) with concurrent Capecitabine chemotherapy, or the nCT group which received chemotherapy alone.
resultsIn total, 380 patients (nCRT, n = 196, nCT, n = 184) were recruited. The rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) in the nCRT and nCT group was 22.4% and 9.2%, T downstaging was 69.4% and 47.8%, and tumor regression grade (TRG) 1–2 was 59.7% and 24.5%, respectively. Similarly, The nCRT group also had a favorable pCR, T downstaging, and TRG 1–2 rate than the nCT group in the bad-risk, advanced-risk, and subgroup A (tumors located at < 8 cm from the anal verge). In contrast, outcomes were comparable for subgroup B (tumors located at ≥ 8 cm) between the two groups. Moreover, the nCRT had a better rate of 3-year locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) (98.1% vs. 88.0%, P = 0.031) in the bad-risk category compared with the nCT group. Conversely, the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar. The nCRT was associated with a higher rate of grade 1–2 myelosuppression (69.9% vs. 37.0%), diarrhea (54.1% vs. 10.3%), preventive stoma (62.8% vs. 44.6%), postoperative bowel obstruction (9.2% vs. 1.1%), and postoperative anastomotic stenosis (4.1% vs. 0.5%) (all P < 0.05).
conclusionTumor location and risk category may serve as a practical index for clinical decision-making on neoadjuvant therapy strategies in LARC. Patients with bad-risk or tumors located at < 8 cm from the anal verge may be benefited from nCRT.
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.