MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7118382077 · doi:10.21608/dusj.2025.476907

Survival rate and Toxicity (GI and Hematology) of Neoadjuvant Therapies for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Long-course Chemoradiation versus Short-course Radiation with Consolidation Chemotherapy

2025· article· en· W7118382077 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdulrahman Saad El-Rayik, Mohamed Shaban Ibrahim, Mohamed Ahmed Ismaeil, Khaled A. Basala, Ahmed Ayman Abu Eisha, Amir Soliman

Bibliographic record

VenueDelta University Scientific Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazard ratioRandomized controlled trialColorectal cancerRadiation therapyChemotherapyMeta-analysisOdds ratioGastrointestinal cancerObservational study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation (LCCRT) has been the conventional approach for managing locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, short-course radiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy (SCRT-CC) has gained attention as an alternative strategy that may improve oncologic outcomes while optimizing treatment duration and tolerance. Objective: To compare survival outcomes and treatment-related gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicities between SCRT-CC and LCCRT in adult patients with LARC through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 2020–December 2025) identified randomized controlled trials and prospective/retrospective cohort studies evaluating SCRT-CC versus LCCRT. The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) and hematologic toxicities. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB-1 for randomized trials and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity (I²). Results: Nine studies (n = 2,869) met inclusion criteria, comprising 1,331 patients treated with SCRT-CC and 1,538 with LCCRT. SCRT-CC demonstrated a favorable trend in overall survival (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.79–1.06), which became statistically significant following sensitivity analysis (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.65–0.94). Hematologic toxicity did not differ significantly between groups (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.34–2.65). Gastrointestinal toxicity rates were also comparable, although heterogeneity was considerable among studies. Conclusion: SCRT-CC provides survival outcomes comparable or superior to LCCRT without increasing hematologic or gastrointestinal toxicity, supporting its role as an effective neoadjuvant option for LARC. Treatment selection should still be individualized based on patient tolerance and institutional expertise. Larger, standardized clinical trials are warranted to further refine optimal sequencing strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.036
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDelta University Scientific Journal→Same topicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments→French-language works237,207→