ypTNM versus pTNM staging after neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer

Clicks: 1
ID: 317702
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #310 of 332 articles by views in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 332 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract PURPOSE The TNM classification at pathological evaluation determines prognosis following cancer treatment. For rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, whether ypTNM likely confers different prognosis than pTNM. We compared survival outcomes of patients classified by ypTNM vs pTNM staging. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with resected locoregional rectal cancer from the National Cancer Database who underwent upfront surgery (pTNM) and had ≥5 years follow-up (2010 to 2017) were compared with those receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery (ypTNM). To address treatment selection bias, analyses were stratified by receipt of guideline-concordant care. Overall survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS Of 50,436 patients (median age 60; 61.4% male), 11,732 (23.3%) underwent upfront surgery and 38,704 (76.7%) received neoadjuvant therapy; 78.8% of the upfront surgery group received guideline-concordant care. In analyses stratified by guideline-concordant care, overall survival was similar for stage 0-I (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05; 95% CI 0.96-1.15) but significantly worse for ypTNM vs pTNM in stage II (HR 1.50; 95% CI 1.27-1.77; 5-year OS 75.6% vs 83.2%) and stage III (HR 1.60; 95% CI 1.46-1.75; 5-year OS 67.0% vs 78.2%). Multivariable analysis confirmed ypTNM was associated with worse survival at each stage (stage 0-HR 1.14, P=.004; stage II: HR 1.49, P<.001; stage III: HR 1.60, P<.001). CONCLUSION Stage for stage, ypTNM classification is associated with worse survival than pTNM classification, with increasing difference at higher stages. Future staging systems and management guidelines should account for these differences to optimize prognostication and stratification for clinical trials and surveillance strategies.
Reference Key
openalex_W7164997852 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Teppei Miyakawa, J T Lie, Chung-Yuan Hu, Kentaro Ochiai, Ramy Behman, Stephanie Keeling, Qian Shi, Irıs D. Nagtegaal, Richard Goldberg, George J. Chang
Journal JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jnci/djag192
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djag192
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.