ReviewAmerican journal of translational research2026
Optimal surgical timing following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in American journal of translational research, 2026. 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
objectiveTo determine the optimal surgical interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME) for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer through a network meta-analysis (NMA). Additionally, a continuous dose-response meta-regression analysis was conducted to explore potential non-linear associations.
methodsElectronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched from inception to July 18, 2024. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (ROB 2.0) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The NMA was performed under a Bayesian framework, and surgical intervals ranging from <4 weeks to 28 weeks were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR), while secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence rate, and sphincter preservation rate (SPR).
resultsA total of 12 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies) involving 31,783 patients were included. SUCRA rankings indicated that an interval of 8-12 weeks was most effective for achieving pCR, prolonging DFS, and reducing recurrence rate. Conversely, a 6-8 week interval was most favorable for improving OS and SPR. Both very short (<4 weeks) and very long (>24 weeks) intervals ranked lower across most clinical outcomes. Dose-response analysis revealed a significant inverted U-shaped association for pCR, mathematically peaking at approximately 12.7 weeks, whereas DFS showed a peak at around 5.9 weeks.
conclusionCurrent evidence suggests that an interval of 8-12 week is most strongly associated with improved pCR and prolonged DFS, whereas a 6-8 week interval shows the highest probability of improving OS and SPR. Clinical decision-making should balance oncologic and functional outcomes based on individualized assessments.
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.