ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Comparison of currently common neoadjuvant therapy strategies for rectal cancer: a three-arm retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The evolving neoadjuvant therapy regime is revolutionizing the management of local advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and neoadjuvant immunotherapy are currently the most prominent strategies. However, existing studies predominantly evaluate these approaches in isolation, leaving their comparative efficacy unresolved. Methods: A three-arm retrospective study was conducted including a total of 160 consecutive patients pathologically diagnosed as adenocarcinoma with pMMR or non-MSI-H and receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical resection in Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH). Based on the neoadjuvant therapy regimen, patients were divided into three groups: the nCRT group (n=81), the TNT group (n=42), and the PD-1 group (n=37). The clinical data including baseline characteristics, treatment information, and MRI accuracy on rectal cancer restaging were analyzed. Considering the possible impact of gut microbiome on antitumor immunity, we also analyzed differences in gut microbiome between baseline stool samples from pCR and non-pCR patients in the PD-1 group. Results: No significant differences were found in baseline characteristics among the three groups. The rates of pathologic complete response (pCR, corresponding to pTRG 0) were 25.9% (21/81) in the nCRT group, 40.5% (17/42) in the TNT group, and 45.9% (17/37) in the PD-1 group (p=0.048). The accuracy of MRI for restaging rectal cancer T stage was not ideal, particularly in the TNT and PD-1 groups. Additionally, the α and β diversity of gut microbiome between baseline stool samples from pCR and non-pCR patients in the PD-1 group were similar. Conclusions: Both TNT and PD-1 combination therapy demonstrated higher tumor regression and pCR rates compared with nCRT, suggesting enhanced local tumor control. However, improvements in rectal MRI accuracy and gut microbiome research are needed to enhance precision in diagnostics and therapy.
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.