Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 418

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer With Complete Clinical Response After Neoadjuvant Therapy

Smith, James D., Ruby, Jeannine A., Goodman, Karyn A., Saltz, Leonard B., Guillem, José G., Weiser, Martin R., Temple, Larissa K., Nash, Garrett M., Paty, Philip B.·2012·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

In Brief Introduction: Nonoperative management (NOM) of rectal cancer after a complete clinical response (cCR) to neoadjuvant therapy is controversial. In this article, we retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of patients managed with selective NOM after a cCR to neoadjuvant treatment and compared these with patients who underwent standard rectal resection with a pathological complete response (pCR). Methods: Patients completing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for stage I to III rectal cancer between January 2006 and August 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Median follow-up was calculated in months after completion of CRT. Results: Thirty-two patients (median follow-up 28 months) were treated by NOM after a cCR. Among 265 treated by CRT and rectal resection, 57 patients (22%) had a pCR and formed the control group (median follow-up 43 months). Factors associated with selective use of NOM included lower pretreatment stage, older age, and distal tumor location (P < 0.05). In the NOM group, 6 recurred locally (median 11 months, range 7–14), 3 of whom also had concurrent distant recurrence. All 6 local failures were controlled by salvage rectal resection with no further local recurrence of disease (median follow-up 17 months). In the rectal resection/pCR group, there were no local failures. The 2-year distant disease-free survival (88% vs 98%, P = 0.27) and overall survival (96% vs 100%, P = 0.56) were similar for NOM and rectal resection/pCR groups. Conclusions: Rectal resection was successfully avoided in 81% of patients selected for NOM. When combined with salvage surgery, NOM appears to achieve similar local and distant disease control compared with patients with a pCR treated by rectal resection. Longer follow-up and prospective trials are warranted to evaluate this promising treatment option. We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of patients managed nonoperatively after complete clinical response to neoadjuvant treatment versus patients undergoing standard rectal resection with pathological complete response (pCR). When combined with salvage surgery, nonoperative management appears to achieve similar local and distant disease control as standard rectal resection with pCR. Longer follow-up and prospective trials are warranted.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e3182759f1c

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 418

Metadata

Authors
Smith, J. D., Ruby, J. A., Goodman, K. A., Saltz, L. B., Guillem, J. G., Weiser, M. R., Temple, L. K., Nash, G. M., & Paty, P. B.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2012-12
Volume
256
Issue
6
Pages
965-972
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082300679
Cited by
418
References
2
FWCI
12.64
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer With Complete Clinical Response After Neoadjuvant Therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e3182759f1c
The paper
Smith, J. D., Ruby, J. A., Goodman, K. A., Saltz, L. B., Guillem, J. G., Weiser, M. R., Temple, L. K., Nash, G. M., & Paty, P. B. (2012). Nonoperative Management of Rectal Cancer With Complete Clinical Response After Neoadjuvant Therapy. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3182759f1c

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.