Evidence Hub

To Explore the Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Colon Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Linlin Xiao, Jingyi Sun, Lu Wang, Ming Liu, Xuan Wang, Yi Wang, Botian Zhao, F. Qu et al.

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2025

698 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) in locally advanced colon cancer (LACC).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to review relevant studies on NCRT for LACC published publicly from January 1, 2000 to October 31, 2024. Literatures were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment was performed on those that met the criteria, and meta-analysis were performed using Stata 15.0 software after extracting relevant data.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with a total of 698 LACC patients treated with NCRT were finally included in the analysis. This meta-analysis revealed that patients achieved an R0 resection rate of 92% (95% CI: 88%-96%). In terms of tumor regression, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate was 20% (95% CI: 16%-25%) and the major pathological response (MPR) rate was 50% (95% CI: 36%-64%). In the aspect of organ preservation, the overall organ preservation rate was 53% (95% CI: 46%-60%), while the rate for patients with bladder involvement reached 87% (95% CI: 73%-100%). Regarding postoperative recurrence or metastasis, patients had a local recurrence rate of 10% (95% CI: 6%-13%) and a distant metastasis rate of 21% (95% CI: 14%-27%). Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NRT) has shown survival benefits in LACC, improving 5-year overall survival (OS) with an HR of 1.42 (95% CI:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 698 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free