ArticleBMC cancer2026
Comparative effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy combined with stent placement versus stent alone in obstructive colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC 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
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) and neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for obstructive colorectal cancer (CRC).
methodsThis multicenter, retrospective study analyzed 154 patients with obstructive CRC from three centers between 2011 and 2025. Patients were allocated to either a NAT combined with SEMS group (n = 93) or a SEMS-alone group (n = 61). Short-term procedural outcomes, pathological tumor response, long-term survival, and the impact of the time interval from stenting to surgery were evaluated between groups and across two time periods (2011-2020 vs. 2021-2025).
resultsBaseline characteristics were largely comparable between groups. The NAT group demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative stoma rates (8.6% vs. 29.0%, P = 0.031) and postoperative complication rates (8.6% vs. 29.0%, P = 0.031) in the 2011-2020, advantages that persisted in the 2021-2025. Pathological assessment revealed a superior tumor response in the 2021-2025, with 20.7% achieving TRG 0-1 and significantly higher rates of T and N downstaging (39.7% and 60.3%) compared to the 2011-2020. Although survival benefits were not significant in the 2011-2020 period, NAT may be associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) in the 2021-2025 cohort (P = 0.013). Analysis of surgical timing identified an optimal interval of 14-21 days related to OS for the SEMS group, whereas for NAT patients, an interval exceeding 90 days was associated with worse disease-free survival (DFS).
conclusionSEMS-NAT for obstructive CRC may is an important factor for improved surgical quality and OS benefit in 2021-2025. This study provides crucial evidence for optimizing treatment strategy by recommending a surgery interval.
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.