The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival and recurrence after curative rectal cancer surgery in patients who are histologically node negative after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether adjuvant chemotherapy will affect recurrence rate or disease-free and overall survival in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who were staged with MRI node-positive disease (mrN+) preoperatively. These patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with curative rectal cancer surgery and their pathological staging was negative for nodal disease (ypN0). There is no consensus on the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in such patients. METHOD: Patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and underwent curative rectal cancer surgery for rectal adenocarcinoma staged as [mrTxN+M0] on MRI staging and who on pathological staging were found to be [ypTxN0M0] were retrospectively identified from January 2008 December 2012 from two tertiary referral centres (Royal Marsden Hospital, London and Saint-Andre Hospital, Bordeaux). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three patients were recruited and, after propensity matching at a ratio of 2:1, n = 80 patients were divided to receive adjuvant (n = 28) or no adjuvant treatment (n = 52). A comparison of adjuvant chemotherapy vs no adjuvant therapy showed that the mean overall survival was 2.67 vs 3.60 years (P = 0.42) and disease-free survival was 2.27 vs 3.32 years (P = 0.14). CONCLUSION: This study found no significant difference in survival or disease recurrence between patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and patients who did not. There is no clear evidence to support or dismiss the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients who were node positive on preoperative MRI and node negative on histopathological staging. Further multicentre prospective randomized trials are needed to identify the appropriate treatment regime for this group of patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".