The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes following pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer
Abstract
Background: Following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and interval proctectomy, 15–20 per cent of patients are found to have a pathological complete response (pCR) to combined multimodal therapy, but controversy persists about whether this yields a survival benefit. This systematic review evaluated current evidence regarding long-term oncological outcomes in patients found to have a pCR to neoadjuvant CRT. Methods: Three major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library) were searched. The systematic review included all original articles reporting long-term outcomes in patients with rectal cancer who had a pCR to neoadjuvant CRT, published in English, from January 1950 to March 2011. Results: A total of 724 studies were identified for screening. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 studies involving 3363 patients (1263 with pCR and 2100 without) were included (mean age 60 years, 65·0 per cent men). Some 73·4 per cent had a sphincter-saving procedure. Mean follow-up was 55·5 (range 40–87) months. For patients with a pCR, the weighted mean local recurrence rate was 0·7 (range 0–2·6) per cent. Distant failure was observed in 8·7 per cent. Five-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 90·2 and 87·0 per cent respectively. Compared with non-responders, a pCR was associated with fewer local recurrences (odds ratio (OR) 0·25; P = 0·002) and less frequent distant failure (OR 0·23; P < 0·001), with a greater likelihood of being alive (OR 3·28; P = 0·001) and disease-free (OR 4·33, P < 0·001) at 5 years. Conclusion: A pCR following neoadjuvant CRT is associated with excellent long-term survival, with low rates of local recurrence and distant failure.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Stang, A. (2010) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z · Cited by 17,396
Preoperative versus Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer
Sauer, R., Becker, H., Hohenberger, W., Rödel, C., Wittekind, C., Fietkau, R., Martus, P., Tschmelitsch, J., Hager, E., Hess, C. F., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa040694 · Cited by 6,050
Cited by
Digital pathology and artificial intelligence in translational medicine and clinical practice
Baxi, V., Edwards, R., Montalto, M., & Saha, S. (2022) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1038/s41379-021-00919-2 · Cited by 592
Uppaluri, R., Campbell, K. M., Egloff, A. M., Zolkind, P., Skidmore, Z. L., Nussenbaum, B., Paniello, R. C., Rich, J. T., Jackson, R., Pipkorn, P., et al. (2020) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-20-1695 · Cited by 384
Optimal time interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for rectal cancer
Sloothaak, D. A. M., Geijsen, D. E., van Leersum, N. J., Punt, C. J. A., Buskens, C. J., Bemelman, W. A., & Tanis, P. J. (2013) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.9112 · Cited by 290
Sanoff, H. K., Moon, D. H., Moore, D. T., Boles, J., Bui, C., Blackstock, W., O'Neil, B. H., Subramaniam, S., McRee, A. J., Carlson, C., et al. (2019) · Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.nano.2019.02.021 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Martin, S. T., Heneghan, H. M., & Winter, D. C.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-02-23
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 918-928
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2073631512
- Cited by
- 637
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.