ReviewCancers2026
Neoadjuvant Advantage, Adjuvant Challenge: Clinical Evidence and Hypothetical Biological Mechanisms Behind Divergent Tolerability.
Review in Cancers, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adjuvant chemotherapy is a cornerstone of curative treatment for solid tumours; however, its benefit is frequently limited by poor tolerability and low treatment completion rates after surgery. Importantly, tolerability decreases from neoadjuvant to adjuvant regimens, a phenomenon particularly evident in gastrointestinal malignancies and observed in breast cancer, despite the latter generally involving less extensive surgery. Moreover, the mechanisms underlying this reduced tolerability remain a conundrum in clinical practice. This narrative review explores the discrepancy between neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy tolerability in gastrointestinal and breast cancers, focusing on potential biological and pharmacological determinants. Clinical and translational evidence is analysed, including treatment completion, dose intensity, and toxicity profiles in perioperative settings (i.e., any chemotherapy around the time of surgery, e.g., preoperative, intraoperative, and immediately postoperative chemotherapy), with emphasis on conventional cytotoxic regimens. Across tumour types, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is consistently associated with higher completion rates and greater dose intensity than adjuvant treatments. Although postoperative morbidity, nutritional impairment, sarcopenia, organ dysfunction and delayed recovery contribute to reduced tolerance and may prevent the initiation or completion of postoperative chemotherapy, particularly in gastrointestinal cancers, these factors may not fully account for the observed differences across treatment settings. We therefore discuss additional pharmacokinetic and tumour-related hypotheses as complementary explanations requiring clinical validation. Emerging evidence indicates that tumour burden and surgical resection may modify systemic drug handling, including pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution. The removal of a tumour could decrease the sequestration of drugs and change the interactions between the host and the drugs, which might narrow the therapeutic index after surgery. Consequently, the tolerability of adjuvant chemotherapy could be linked to both postoperative vulnerability and potential biological changes resulting from tumour removal. Optimising treatment sequencing will require integration of pharmacological, physiological, and tumour-specific factors to develop personalised strategies that balance treatment efficacy and quality of life.
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.