% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Babaei:132624,
author = {M. Babaei$^*$ and L. Jansen and Y. Balavarca$^*$ and A.
Sjövall and A. Bos and T. van de Velde and M. Moreau and G.
Liberale and A. F. Gonçalves and M. J. Bento and C. M.
Ulrich$^*$ and P. Schrotz-King$^*$ and V. Lemmens and B.
Glimelius and H. Brenner$^*$},
title = {{N}eoadjuvant {T}herapy in {R}ectal {C}ancer {P}atients
{W}ith {C}linical {S}tage {II} to {III} {A}cross {E}uropean
{C}ountries: {V}ariations and {O}utcomes.},
journal = {Clinical colorectal cancer and other gastrointestinal
malignancies},
volume = {17},
number = {1},
issn = {1533-0028},
address = {Dallas, Tex.},
publisher = {Cancer Information Group},
reportid = {DKFZ-2018-00284},
pages = {e129-e142},
year = {2018},
abstract = {Neoadjuvant therapy improves survival of patients with
clinical stage II and III rectal cancer in clinical trials.
In this study, we investigated the administration of
neoadjuvant radiotherapy (neo-RT) and neoadjuvant
chemoradiotherapy (neo-CRT) and its association with
survival in resected patients in 2 European countries (The
Netherlands and Sweden) and at 3 specialist
centers.Administration of neoadjuvant treatment (all
registries) and overall survival after surgery in The
Netherlands and Sweden were assessed. Hazard ratios (HRs)
were obtained using Cox regression adjusted for potential
confounders.A total of 16,095 rectal cancer patients with
clinical stage II and III were eligible for analyses. Large
variations in administration of neo-RT and neo-CRT were
observed. Elderly patients less often received neo-RT and
neo-CRT. Patients with stage III disease received neo-CRT
more frequently than neo-RT. Administration of neo-RT versus
surgery without neoadjuvant treatment was significantly
associated with improved survival in The Netherlands (HR,
0.62; $95\%$ confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.73) as well as
in Sweden (HR, 0.79; $95\%$ CI, 0.69-0.90). Administration
of neo-CRT was associated with enhanced survival in The
Netherlands (HR, 0.62; $95\%$ CI, 0.50-0.78) but not in
Sweden (HR, 0.97; $95\%$ CI, 0.80-1.18). The mortality of
patients treated with neo-CRT compared with neo-RT showed
inconsistent results in population-based centers.Our results
support an association of neo-RT with enhanced survival
among stage II and III rectal cancer patients. Comparing
neo-CRT with neo-RT, larger variations and inconsistent
results with respect to survival were observed across
centers.},
cin = {C070 / G110 / L101},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)G110-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)L101-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:29074354},
doi = {10.1016/j.clcc.2017.09.002},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/132624},
}