ArticleSurgical oncology insight2024
Assessing the OPRA Trial for surgical oncologists: Safety and feasibility of a total neoadjuvant therapy approach in patients with rectal cancer.
Article in Surgical oncology insight, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting Ferroptosis to Overcome Radioresistance and Enhance Immunotherapy in Colorectal Cancer.Cells · 2026Review
- Impact on Clinical- and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures of an Organ Preservation-Based Therapeutic Strategy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: The FOREST Project.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- The Role of Predictive and Prognostic MRI-Based Biomarkers in the Era of Total Neoadjuvant Treatment in Rectal Cancer.Cancers · 2024Review
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
Abstract
The Organ Preservation in patients with Rectal Adenocarcinoma (OPRA) trial was a randomized, non-blinded, phase II prospective study investigating total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and a selective "watch-and-wait" (WW) approach in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). It compared two TNT regimens: induction chemotherapy-chemoradiotherapy (INCT-CRT) and chemoradiotherapy-consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT). Depending on tumor response, patients were offered WW or surgery. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS), hypothesizing that patients who underwent TNT with selective WW would have improved DFS compared to historical rates. Secondary endpoints included organ preservation (OP) and overall survival, hypothesizing that differences between INCT-CRT and CRT-CNCT could indicate a superior regimen. Results demonstrated treatment of LARC with TNT and selective WW allows for OP in approximately half of patients without negatively impacting oncologic outcomes such as DFS. The data show that a CRT-CNCT regimen had higher rates of OP, lower rates of tumor regrowth, and similar DFS compared to INCT-CRT. Lastly, DFS does not differ between patients who undergo immediate TME versus TME after regrowth. Thus, patients treated with TNT who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR) can safely undergo WW with the potential for OP. Current research to improve TNT and enhance cCR will expand the utility of the WW approach, including the intensification of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Janus trial), comparing short-course and long-course CRT prior to CNCT (ENSEMBLE and German trials), utilizing fluoropyrimidine-chemotherapy with and without oxaliplatin in the context of WW (CHOW trial), and exploring less invasive operative approaches for early-stage tumors (NEO and NEO II trials).
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.