MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pathologic Complete Response and Survival in Rectal Cancer

2025· review· en· W4412479640 on OpenAlexaff
Kavin Sugumar, Jessica J. Lie, Chee‐Chee Stucky, Yu‐Hui Chang, Justin T. Brady, Nabil Wasif, Mohamad Bassam Sonbol, David A. Etzioni, Harvey J. Mamon, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Zhi Ven Fong

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineColorectal cancerHazard ratioGrading (engineering)Meta-analysisNeoadjuvant therapyRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioOncologyConfidence intervalCancerSurgeryBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is increasingly used as a surrogate end point for survival in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of gastrointestinal oncology. Although this approach has been endorsed by the US Food and Drug Administration, it is still novel and incompletely verified. Objective: To evaluate the trial-level association between pCR and survival in rectal cancer RCTs examining the effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy. Data Sources: A meta-analysis was conducted to identify eligible RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases published between database inception to January 3, 2024. Study Selection: RCTs evaluating neoadjuvant therapies in patients with rectal cancer who underwent subsequent surgical resection and reported pCR, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators extracted the data, which were verified by a third author. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 2, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool, respectively. Adjusted odds and hazard ratios with their 95% CIs were extracted. Weighted linear regression was used to assess the correlation between pCR and both OS and DFS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trial-level correlation between pCR and both OS and DFS. Results: Twenty-five RCTs, including 11 882 patients, met the inclusion criteria. On meta-regression analysis, pCR was not correlated with OS (β = 0.37; 95% CI, -0.98 to 1.71; P = .57). Similarly, pCR was not correlated with DFS (β = -0.84; 95% CI, -2.55 to 0.87; P = .32). Two studies (8%) used in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. On sensitivity analysis excluding these studies, pCR was still not associated with OS or DFS. Subgroup analysis of RCTs using total neoadjuvant therapies was not possible due to limited sample size. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing neoadjuvant therapies in rectal cancer, there was no trial-level association between pCR and survival. These results suggest that the use of pCR as a surrogate end point for survival should be reexamined and used more cautiously.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207