ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Discrepancies between clinical and radiological assessment of complete remission of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe watch & wait concept in rectal cancer offers a promising non-operative strategy for patients who achieve a complete response following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (nRCT). However, accurately diagnosing clinical complete remission (cCR) based on clinical examinations, endoscopy and imaging remains a major challenge.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with rectal cancer who received nRCT at the University Hospital Erlangen between May 2022 and July 2024 (radiation: 50.4–54 Gy or 5x5 Gy; chemotherapy: 5-FU and oxaliplatin, partially as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) concept). Patients were analyzed based on their clinical, endoscopic, and radiological findings, and classified as having either consistent or discrepant diagnostic results. Particular attention was paid to patients with discrepancies between diagnostic modalities.
resultsA total of 78 patients underwent nRCT for rectal cancer during the study period. Six patients were excluded due to a second malignancy, tumor recurrence, or incomplete restaging. 72 patients were included in the final analysis. Of these, 46 patients showed consistent evidence of residual tumor during restaging, leading to surgical resection, with histopathological confirmation of residual tumor in 76% of cases. A clinical and radiological complete remission was observed in 12 of 72 patients (16.7%), four of whom experienced local regrowth. Discrepancies were noted between clinical, endoscopic and radiological findings following nRCT in 14 patients (median age 68 years, range 40–73). Of these patients, 13 had a negative MRI and one had a negative endoscopy, despite differing findings on the other modalities.
conclusionDiagnosing complete remission after nRCT remains challenging within the context of a watch & wait strategy. Our findings suggest that pelvic MRI may overestimate the response to treatment. This is consistent with published data. Discrepancies between clinical, endoscopic, and radiologic assessments should prompt caution and emphasize the need for individualized decision-making before surgery is omitted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.