ArticlePloS one2026
Prognostic value of tumor deposits and their different response to neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTumor deposits (TDs) may have a worse prognosis in rectal cancer, but their significance in the neoadjuvant era is less certain. Post-treatment TDs might even be a sign of tumor response. The present study aimed to assess the clinical significance of TDs detected before and after neoadjuvant therapy, and to investigate the impact of neoadjuvant therapy-induced TDs changes on oncological outcomes.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis using our hospital records from 2017 to 2019 was carried out. All patients received preoperative long-course chemoradiotherapy and part of them received total neoadjuvant therapy.
resultsA total of 132 patients with cT3-4N+M0 were included. mrTDs were observed in 40 (30.3%) patients. 40% of the patients had two or more mrTDs. 64.4% of mrTDs located in the mesorectal fat. mrTDs were associated with mrT4 stage, lymph node invasion, threatened mrMRF, and positive mrEMVI. 51.4% of mrTDs positive patients achieved complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were worse in mrTD positive patients (3y-DFS: 42.5% vs 73.9%, P < 0.001; 3y-OS: 55% vs 82.9%, P < 0.001). Among the patients with mrTDs, those who became ypTDs- after neoadjuvant therapy had better outcome compared to the ypTDs+ patients (3y-DFS: 52.6% vs 22.2%, P = 0.022; 3y-DMFS: 63.2% vs 27.8%, P = 0.025). Distant metastasis occurred earlier and more frequently in ypTDs+ group, and multiple metastasis were more common. ypTDs and TDs' different response to neoadjuvant therapy were prognostic factors of overall survival in multivariate analysis.
conclusionsThe presence of mrTDs and the poor regression of mrTDs in cT3-4N+M0 rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment are associated with advanced disease and worse outcome. Patients with ypTDs+ after neoadjuvant therapy have dismal outcome, which call for more innovative treatment.
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.