ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
A Clinical Primer for Defining Time Zero in Rectal Cancer Studies of Nonoperative Management: Implications for Survival and Local Regrowth.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContemporary cancer research prioritizes clinical endpoints such as overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). However, definition of the starting point, "time zero," for time-to-event analyses remains inconsistent in the rectal cancer nonoperative management (NOM) literature, affecting study comparisons. Moreover, the traditional definition of DFS for NOM is complicated given the success of salvage surgery for local regrowth (LR). Our aim was to evaluate how these definitions affect estimates of OS, LR, and DFS.
methodsWe analyzed both a single-institution and a multi-institution cohort of patients with rectal cancer on NOM, shifting time zero from diagnosis to the post-treatment response assessment and to the date of clinical complete response (cCR) determination.
resultsIn the single-institution NOM cohort of 85 patients, shifting time zero from diagnosis to cCR determination led to a median 5-year OS decrease of 5% (87%→82%) and a 3-year LR rate increase of 4% (26%→30%). Importantly, the 5-year DFS increased by 23% (56%→79%) after excluding successful surgical disease salvage. In the multi-institutional dataset of 450 NOM patients, a shift of time zero from diagnosis to cCR determination led to a median 5-year OS decrease of 1.6% (94.2%→92.6%) and a 3-year LR rate increase of 1.1% (16.0%→17.1%). Five-year DFS increased by 8.3% (74.7%→83%) after excluding successfully salvaged disease.
conclusionsThe range of definitions of time zero and DFS affect oncologic estimates in NOM for rectal cancer, particularly in datasets with smaller sample sizes, which may misrepresent oncologic outcomes. This underscores the need for standardization to ensure accurate comparisons across studies and guide shared decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41266916What 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.