ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2026
Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Alone for High-Risk Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: a Propensity Score Matched Study.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough current guidelines recommend total neoadjuvant therapy as the initial treatment for patients with high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer, its adoption remains controversial in certain populations due to the various adverse effects associated with radiotherapy.Currently, there is a paucity of studies directly comparing total neoadjuvant therapy(TNT)with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone(NACT) for the management of high-risk mid/upper locally advanced rectal cancerLARC.
methodsBetween January 2017 and December 2022, eligible patients admitted to our institution were included in the study. We retrospectively compared the two groups regarding postoperative pathological response, surgical outcomes, prophylactic enterostomy, postoperative complications, and survival outcomes.
resultsA total of 391 patients were included in the propensity score matched (PSM) analysis. After PSM, 294 patients (147 pairs) remained, the TNT group demonstrated a higher pathological complete response (pCR) rate compared to the NACT group (23.81% vs. 8.84%, p=0.007), as well as a more favorable tumor regression grade (TRG) (p<0.001). However, the TNT group also had a higher rate of prophylactic enterostomy (p<0.001). While there was no significant difference in overall postoperative complications between the groups (p=0.138), the incidence of anastomotic fistula was significantly higher in the TNT group (p=0.008). Regarding survival outcomes, no significant differences were observed between the TNT and NACT groups in terms of disease-free survival (DFS, p=0.285) or overall survival (OS, p=0.906).
conclusionsFor patients with high-risk mid/upper LARC, NACT may serve as a potential therapeutic alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42171940What 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.