The trial, registered under numbers NL6179 and NTR6326, was designed as a prospective non-randomised cluster study and enrolled one hundred adults between July 2018 and June 2023. Rather than randomising individual patients, the investigators assigned whole institutions to different care models: the University Medical Centre Groningen, a tertiary referral centre, delivered a structured goal-directed nutritional support protocol known as GDNS, while the Hospital Group Twente, a secondary hospital, provided usual care. This cluster design was chosen deliberately to minimise the risk that the intervention protocol would contaminate routine practice at a single site. Eligible patients were over eighteen years old, had histologically confirmed, previously untreated oesophageal cancer, and were scheduled for curative-intent chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Patients undergoing salvage oesophagectomy, those with cervical lymph node involvement or distant metastases, post-cricoid tumours, poor performance status, or an inability to complete questionnaires were excluded. Fifty patients were included in each arm.

The intervention itself was built on three technical pillars. First, each patient in the GDNS group was assigned a dedicated dietitian acting as a case manager, who monitored dietary intake continuously and performed all nutritional assessments from baseline onward. Second, energy requirements were measured rather than merely estimated: indirect calorimetry was performed in 88 percent of patients at baseline, complementing standard predictive equations, alongside the Patient Generated-Subjective Global Assessment. Third, nutritional support—oral nutritional supplements, enteral tube feeding, and parenteral nutrition where necessary—was provided proactively rather than reactively. Usual care, by contrast, involved dietitians at multiple locations who monitored weight and intake during chemoradiotherapy and initiated support when deemed necessary, with research nurses conducting assessments using the short form of the PG-SGA, but without routine recording of intake or measured energy expenditure.

The study’s primary endpoint was the change in appendicular skeletal muscle index, or ASMI, the mass of limb skeletal muscle normalised to squared height, expressed in kilograms per square metre. Because computed tomography, the reference standard for muscle quantification, was only systematically available in the intervention group, the researchers relied on bioelectrical impedance analysis using a Seca mBCA 525 device, applying Sergi’s validated prediction formula and cross-checking the estimates against two independent biomarkers: skeletal muscle area measured on abdominal CT scans at the third lumbar vertebra level, and urinary creatinine excretion from 24-hour collections. The correlations were convincing—bioelectrical ASMI tracked CT-derived skeletal muscle index with correlation coefficients rising from 0.48 at baseline to 0.96 at twelve months, and urinary creatinine correlated at 0.58 and 0.72 at baseline and one year, respectively. Measurements were taken at seven or more timepoints: baseline, one week and three to six weeks after the start of chemoradiotherapy, between radiation completion and surgery, at oesophagectomy, before discharge, and at three, six, and twelve months postoperatively.

The central finding is a distinctive decline-recovery-decline pattern in muscle mass that played out identically in shape across both groups. During chemoradiotherapy, ASMI fell by 2.53 percent in the GDNS group and 3.20 percent under usual care—a modest loss compared with the pooled figure of roughly minus 6.69 percent reported in meta-analyses of neoadjuvant therapy. Between the end of radiotherapy and surgery, muscle mass actually rebounded in both arms, gaining 0.95 percent with GDNS and 2.51 percent with usual care, consistent with a recovery window that prior prehabilitation research has also documented. Then, after oesophagectomy, the pattern reversed: by twelve months, ASMI had fallen by 5.75 percent in the intervention group and 7.09 percent under usual care. Notably, in the peri-operative window alone—the stretch from the preoperative visit to early recovery—the usual care group lost 4.88 percent of limb muscle while the GDNS group lost only 0.93 percent, the sole between-group comparison that reached nominal statistical significance (P = 0.038), although this signal dissolved after adjustment for confounders such as surgical duration, blood loss, and hospital stay.

Formal statistical modelling reinforced the picture of a real but statistically non-significant difference favouring the intervention. An analysis of covariance incorporating sex, age, smoking, body mass index, and complications found no significant between-group difference in relative ASMI change at any phase, and sensitivity analyses adding sepsis to the covariates confirmed the result. Generalised linear mixed-effects modelling, which best captured the non-linear trajectory with a random-intercept model containing a quadratic time term over a mean seventeen-week interval from baseline to surgery, likewise detected no intervention effect. The investigators had powered the study to detect a five percent improvement in muscle mass during chemoradiotherapy; the observed differences, though directionally consistent, fell short of that threshold. Reduced sample size—driven partly by attrition, with only 16 and 21 patients respectively completing the full twelve-month follow-up, and by the logistical strains of conducting research during the COVID-19 pandemic—likely constrained the study’s ability to confirm what the trends suggest.

Beyond the primary endpoint, the goal-directed approach left clearer fingerprints on other measures of nutritional status. Energy intake in the GDNS group rose from 23.4 to 28.0 kcal/kg and protein intake from 1.03 to 1.32 g/kg during chemoradiotherapy, values that closely match international ESPEN guideline targets of 25 to 30 kcal/kg and at least 1.0 to 1.5 g protein/kg. Body mass index declined less steeply during radiotherapy in the intervention group, and while waist circumference and fat mass index increased slightly under GDNS, they decreased under usual care. Urinary creatinine, a biochemical surrogate of total muscle mass, remained stable in the intervention group across the first six months but declined significantly under usual care—a between-group difference that did reach significance. Malnutrition defined by the GLIM criteria nonetheless rose in both arms during chemoradiotherapy, from 34.1 to 58.5 percent in GDNS and from 35.4 to a striking 85.4 percent under usual care, and quality of life, assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, was significantly better at the end of radiotherapy in the intervention group before recovering in both arms after surgery.

The study also surfaced uncomfortable truths about translating measured physiology into clinical targets. Although indirect calorimetry revealed that measured resting energy expenditure at baseline—1854 kcal on average—significantly exceeded the 1674 kcal predicted by standard equations, the measured targets were actually applied in clinical practice in only 22 percent of cases at baseline and 37.5 percent later in treatment, apparently reflecting dietitians’ habitual reliance on predictive equations and a blanket 30 percent physical-activity correction that overlooks interindividual variation. Surgical outcomes added further complexity: the GDNS group experienced longer operations, greater blood loss, longer hospital stays, and a higher rate of postoperative sepsis (19.4 versus 2.6 percent), which the authors attribute plausibly to a learning curve, since robot-assisted oesophagectomy was being introduced at the tertiary centre during the study while the secondary hospital had already mastered it. One-year overall and disease-free survival did not differ between the arms.

Set against the wider literature, the modest muscle loss observed in this trial is itself noteworthy. Previous cohorts of oesophageal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy have reported substantially larger declines, and the present figures are more comparable to those seen with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, hinting that both intensive support and improving usual care may contribute to attenuation. The findings also echo the growing consensus that nutrition alone cannot fully protect muscle: the PERFECT exercise trial found that resistance training preserved fat-free mass after oesophagectomy but was thwarted by inadequate postoperative protein intake, exactly the deficit the Dutch team observed between three and six months after surgery in their intervention group. The authors argue that this points squarely toward personalised, integrated interventions combining dietetics and physical therapy, with particular attention to the postoperative phase, where the steepest losses occurred in both arms.

Ultimately, the study delivers a measured verdict. A dedicated dietitian, calorimetry-based targets, and proactive tube feeding and supplementation produced better nutritional intake, more favourable body composition trends, and improved quality of life, and smaller—but not statistically significant—muscle loss during chemoradiotherapy and at one year after surgery. Survival was unchanged, and unexpected surgical complications in the intervention cohort cloud the risk-benefit calculus. What the trial establishes most firmly is the biological narrative: muscle mass in oesophageal cancer follows a predictable rhythm of loss during radiation, partial recovery before surgery, and renewed decline afterward, and the postoperative period is where the greatest opportunity for intervention still lies. For clinicians managing this notoriously catabolic disease, the message is that even intensive nutrition cannot be a substitute for a genuinely integrated, individualised recovery strategy.

Neoadjuvant therapy aims to reduce tumor burden before surgery, improving the prospects for curative resection and long-term survival. The primary modalities under scrutiny are chemoradiotherapy, which combines radiation with concurrent chemotherapy, and chemotherapy alone. While chemoradiotherapy has historically been preferred to optimize tumor downstaging and pathologic complete response (pCR), chemotherapeutic strategies without radiation are gaining traction as they potentially minimize adverse effects without compromising efficacy.

This study systematically collected data from 380 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer located within 10 cm of the anal verge, all with clinical staging indicative of either T2N+M0 or T3-4NanyM0 disease. The patients were divided into two cohorts: one treated with nCRT consisting of radiotherapy doses ranging from 45.0 to 50.4 Gy across 25 to 28 fractions, combined with concurrent oral Capecitabine; and the other receiving nCT consisting solely of chemotherapy without radiation.

Remarkably, the findings revealed a pronounced disparity in pathologic complete response rates favoring the nCRT group, with 22.4% of these patients achieving pCR compared to only 9.2% in the nCT cohort. Tumor downstaging, a critical indicator of treatment success, was also significantly higher in the nCRT arm at 69.4% versus 47.8%. Furthermore, the tumor regression grade (TRG) 1–2, indicative of substantial tumor cell eradication, was observed in 59.7% of patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy, starkly contrasting with 24.5% for those receiving chemotherapy alone.

A deeper analysis stratified patients into distinct risk categories and tumor location subgroups, unveiling nuanced differences in treatment outcomes. Notably, patients categorized as bad-risk or advanced-risk tumors, along with those whose tumors were situated less than 8 cm from the anal verge (subgroup A), demonstrated superior responses to nCRT. Conversely, for tumors positioned 8 cm or greater from the anal verge (subgroup B), the therapeutic outcomes between nCRT and nCT groups were comparable, suggesting that radiation’s added benefit might be limited in more proximally located tumors.

Beyond pathological response, survival metrics offer pivotal perspectives on long-term benefits. In the bad-risk subgroup, nCRT yielded a significantly improved three-year locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS) rate of 98.1%, markedly surpassing the 88.0% observed in the nCT group. However, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates between the two cohorts did not differ significantly, indicating that while local control benefitted from radiotherapy, systemic disease control might require additional considerations.

Despite these promising oncological outcomes, nCRT was associated with an increased incidence of several adverse events. The study reports substantially higher rates of grade 1–2 myelosuppression and diarrhea within the chemoradiotherapy group compared to chemotherapy alone. Moreover, there was a notable increase in preventive stoma formation, postoperative bowel obstruction, and anastomotic stenosis, complications that can adversely affect patient quality of life and surgical recovery.

The therapeutic dilemma thus centers on balancing efficacy and toxicity. This research importantly proposes tumor location and risk categorization as pragmatic clinical indices to tailor neoadjuvant strategies. Specifically, patients exhibiting bad-risk features or tumors located closer to the anal verge may derive pronounced benefits from the inclusion of radiotherapy, while those with higher tumor positioning could potentially avoid radiation-associated toxicities without compromising treatment success.

Mechanistically, radiation enhances local tumor control through DNA damage and microenvironmental modulation, facilitating more effective downstaging. However, the collateral damage to surrounding healthy tissues underscores the importance of selective application. Chemotherapy alone, while systemic and less morbid in localized adverse effects, might fall short in achieving optimal locoregional control in specific high-risk contexts identified by this study.

These findings carry substantial implications for personalized medicine in colorectal oncology. Clinicians may now leverage tumor anatomical landmarks and risk stratification to optimize neoadjuvant therapy selection, thereby maximizing clinical benefits while minimizing unnecessary treatment-related morbidity.

Future prospective clinical trials with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods will be instrumental in validating these retrospective observations. Additionally, molecular and genomic profiling might further refine patient selection, integrating biological characteristics with anatomical and clinical risk factors.

The research advances the clinical discourse by pinpointing a subset of LARC patients poised to benefit most from intensified local therapy, offering hope for improved outcomes through strategic treatment customization. Integrating such data into evidence-based guidelines could enhance multidisciplinary cancer care, ensuring radiation is judiciously employed where its benefits unequivocally outweigh risks.

This evolving understanding underscores the critical need for continued innovation in neoadjuvant therapies, harnessing novel agents and radiotherapy techniques to amplify efficacy while mitigating toxicities. Advanced radiotherapy modalities such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton therapy may further optimize the therapeutic ratio in future applications.

In summary, this landmark study delivers robust evidence endorsing a nuanced approach to neoadjuvant treatment selection in locally advanced rectal cancer. By advocating tumor location and risk stratification as decision-making anchors, it heralds a more precise, patient-centric therapeutic paradigm. Such progress embodies the broader oncology field’s shift towards individualized interventions aimed at maximizing clinical outcomes and patient quality of life.

As these insights permeate oncological practice, they will shape future consensus recommendations and inform patient discussions about treatment options and expected trajectories. Ultimately, the ability to precisely tailor neoadjuvant therapy promises to improve survival metrics while sparing patients from undue treatment-related hardship.

Subject of Research: Comparison of efficacy and safety between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy alone for locally advanced rectal cancer.

Article Title: Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Article References: Zhang, C., Zhang, F., Hong, H. et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in locally advanced rectal cancer. BMC Cancer 25, 1749 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14616-9

Image Credits: Scienmag.com

DOI: 11 November 2025

Keywords: Locally advanced rectal cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathologic complete response, tumor regression grade, locoregional relapse-free survival, toxicity, tumor location, risk stratification

Rectal cancer, a formidable global health challenge, often necessitates a multimodal approach, with nCRT preceding surgical resection being a cornerstone of curative intent. Yet, patient responses to this regimen show marked heterogeneity, complicating treatment planning and prognostication. The current study’s retrospective cohort analysis scrutinizes 157 patients who underwent nCRT, followed by total mesorectal excision and adjuvant chemotherapy, to interrogate the prognostic significance of integrated inflammatory and nutritional assessments.

Central to the study’s methodology is the calculation of two composite scores: the mGRIm and the M-NPS. The mGRIm score incorporates serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), albumin levels, and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), parameters reflecting tumor metabolism, nutritional reserves, and systemic inflammation, respectively. Meanwhile, the M-NPS extends this paradigm by integrating albumin, total cholesterol, NLR, and the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), capturing a broader spectrum of immunonutritional dynamics.

The researchers stratified patients into high- and low-risk groups according to these scores, enabling a nuanced analysis of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes. Statistical evaluations, including Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models, illuminated significant correlations between elevated inflammatory-nutritional scores and poorer survival metrics. Specifically, patients with higher mGRIm and M-NPS exhibited markedly diminished OS and PFS, underscoring the prognostic weight of systemic inflammatory and nutritional disruptions in rectal cancer management.

Delving deeper, multivariate Cox regression analyses pinpointed critical independent predictors. Tumor length exceeding five centimeters, pre-radiotherapy distant metastases, and a high M-NPS robustly forecasted inferior OS. Conversely, a high mGRIm score, advanced nodal involvement (N stage), and metastatic disease portended decreased PFS. These findings not only validate the clinical relevance of the composite scores but also enhance risk stratification beyond conventional staging parameters.

Pioneeringly, the study culminated in the construction of a nomogram that synthesizes inflammatory-nutritional metrics with established clinical parameters to estimate individualized survival probabilities. This predictive model demonstrated commendable accuracy, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values consistently surpassing 0.7 for 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS and PFS forecasts. Calibration curves concurrently affirmed the model’s predictive reliability, suggesting substantial utility in clinical decision-making.

From a mechanistic standpoint, the integration of inflammatory and nutritional indices reflects the reciprocal influence of tumor biology and host response. Elevated LDH levels indicate heightened tumor glycolysis and hypoxia, fostering aggressive phenotypes. Hypoalbuminemia and dyslipidemia signal malnutrition and systemic catabolism, which impair immune competence and treatment tolerance. The NLR and LMR encapsulate the balance between pro-tumor inflammatory cells and anti-tumor lymphocyte populations, modulating tumor microenvironment dynamics and systemic immunity.

This investigational endeavor underscores the imperative to transcend traditional oncological staging by embedding biomarker-driven frameworks into therapeutic algorithms. The capacity to preemptively gauge treatment response and survival not only individualizes care but also allocates resources efficiently, potentially sparing non-responders from unnecessary toxicities while guiding intensified surveillance.

Notably, the retrospective design and single-institution cohort represent limitations warranting multicenter prospective validation to consolidate generalizability. Further exploration into the biological underpinnings of these scores may also unravel novel therapeutic targets, particularly in modulating inflammation and nutritional pathways.

The fusion of inflammatory and nutritional evaluations represents a promising leap towards precision oncology in rectal cancer. By harnessing readily obtainable laboratory parameters, clinicians can now better predict outcomes, tailor neoadjuvant approaches, and refine patient counseling. Such innovations align with the broader oncology paradigm shift focusing on biomarker-informed personalized medicine.

As the field advances, integrating molecular profiling with composite immunonutritional scores could yield even more robust predictive models, facilitating dynamic treatment adjustments. Moreover, these insights may extend to other malignancies where host-tumor interactions critically influence prognosis, heralding a new era of integrative oncology.

In conclusion, Wang and colleagues provide compelling evidence that combined inflammatory-nutritional evaluation via mGRIm and M-NPS scores holds significant prognostic value in rectal cancer patients undergoing nCRT. The developed nomogram stands poised to become a vital clinical tool, augmenting individualized risk assessment and optimizing therapeutic outcomes. This study exemplifies the impactful convergence of biomarker research and clinical oncology, paving the way for more effective, patient-centered cancer care.

Subject of Research:
Rectal cancer prognosis and treatment response prediction using integrated inflammatory and nutritional biomarker scores in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy settings.

Article Title:
Prognostic value of integrated inflammatory-nutritional evaluation in neoadjuvant-treated rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis.

Article References:
Wang, M., Di, X., Zhang, S. et al. Prognostic value of integrated inflammatory-nutritional evaluation in neoadjuvant-treated rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis. BMC Cancer 25, 1453 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14804-7

Image Credits: Scienmag.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14804-7

Gastric cancer, notoriously difficult to treat due to its typically late diagnosis and aggressive nature, remains a significant global health challenge. The imperative to optimize treatment regimens to enhance tumor shrinkage prior to surgery, improve surgical outcomes, and ultimately elevate patient survival rates has driven oncologists and researchers alike to investigate innovative therapeutic combinations. This study represents a salient stride towards that goal, meticulously assessing clinical data from 409 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection between 2019 and 2020.

The investigators employed robust statistical methodologies, including inverse probability weighting (IPW), to meticulously adjust for confounders and balance baseline characteristics between patients receiving XELOX combined with neoadjuvant radiotherapy (CRT group) versus those who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (NACT group). Such rigorous analytical techniques bolster the validity of the comparative outcomes reported, lending substantive weight to the findings.

One of the most striking results centers on the pathological complete response rates observed in the two cohorts. Patients treated with the CRT regimen exhibited substantially higher rates of complete tumor eradication on pathological examination (15.8%) compared to their NACT counterparts (4.7%). This pronounced difference underscores the enhanced tumoricidal efficacy achieved through the synergistic effects of combining radiotherapy with chemotherapy prior to surgical intervention.

Further reinforcing the advantage of chemoradiotherapy, the study found a significantly higher negative conversion rate of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)—a critical tumor biomarker—in the CRT group (38.1%) compared to NACT patients (11.8%). This biomarker clearance potentially signals superior tumor control and may correlate with improved long-term outcomes, opening new vistas for prognostic stratification.

Concomitantly, tumor regression grading (TRG), a histopathological measure of cancer response to treatment, was markedly more favorable among patients receiving CRT. The proportion achieving TRG 0–1, indicative of minimal residual tumor cells, was over double in the CRT group (60.3% versus 24.3%), emphasizing the profound impact of integrating radiotherapy into the neoadjuvant treatment landscape.

Notably, the CRT cohort also enjoyed significantly improved downstaging of the tumor, with postoperative pathological stages ypT0 and T1 comprising 35.5% of patients, nearly tripling the rates seen with chemotherapy alone. This level of tumor downstaging can translate to more effective surgical resection and potentially better postoperative prognoses.

A curious yet clinically relevant finding emerged concerning lymph node dissection and status. Despite a lower average number of lymph nodes dissected in the CRT group (17 versus 24), the rate of pathological node negativity (ypN0) was significantly higher at 60.3%, compared to 39.8% in the NACT group. This suggests that CRT may more effectively sterilize nodal metastases, potentially lowering the burden of systemic disease.

Surgical radicality, a cornerstone for curative intent in gastric cancer surgery, was impressively achieved in both groups, with CRT enabling a 100% R0 resection rate versus 96.5% in the chemotherapy-alone cohort. Achieving R0 resection, defined as complete removal of all macroscopically and microscopically detectable tumor tissue, is critical for optimizing long-term survival in gastric cancer patients.

Importantly, despite the intensified treatment regimen, patient safety profiles between the two groups were comparable. The study meticulously evaluated perioperative complications and adverse events such as bone marrow suppression, gastrointestinal toxicities including nausea, vomiting, esophagitis, and diarrhea, finding no significant differences. This observation assuages concerns regarding the potential escalation of treatment-related morbidity when combining radiotherapy with chemotherapy.

Hospitalization times were also similar across both cohorts, suggesting that adding radiotherapy did not impose additional burdens in terms of recovery or healthcare resource utilization. The comparable safety and recovery metrics highlight that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy can be safely integrated into clinical practice without compromising patient quality of care or imposing undue risks.

From an oncological outcome perspective, the CRT group displayed superior disease-free survival, a vital metric reflecting the period wherein patients remain free from cancer recurrence post-treatment. However, overall survival differences did not reach statistical significance within the follow-up time frame, suggesting that longer-term studies may be necessary to unravel whether the initial disease control benefits translate into extended survival advantages.

The meticulous correlation analyses conducted between clinical variables and tumor biomarkers further enrich the understanding of prognostic factors in gastric cancer. Identifying reliable biomarkers capable of predicting response to neoadjuvant therapies remains a critical research frontier. The study’s findings advance this pursuit by delineating significant associations that could inform personalized treatment strategies in the future.

Collectively, these findings herald a paradigm shift in the management of locally advanced gastric cancer, underscoring the potential of integrating radiotherapy with the XELOX chemotherapy backbone to achieve deeper tumor regression and improved local control without compromising safety. Such evidence advocates for broader adoption of chemoradiotherapy approaches and paves the way for prospective randomized trials to consolidate these encouraging observational data.

The research team’s retrospective analysis, encompassing a substantial patient sample, provides a granular view of treatment dynamics in a real-world setting, balancing the rigor of controlled studies with pragmatic clinical insight. This approach enables a nuanced appreciation of treatment tolerability and efficacy that resonates with practicing oncologists and surgeons.

In sum, the study injects renewed optimism into the quest for enhancing neoadjuvant treatment paradigms in gastric cancer. By harnessing the complementary mechanisms of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the combined XELOX plus neoadjuvant radiotherapy strategy emerges as a potent contender capable of amplifying tumor downstaging, bolstering pathological responses, and facilitating optimal surgical outcomes.

As the oncology community strives to refine multimodal treatment regimens, this landmark investigation lays a robust foundation for evolving guidelines and clinical decision-making. Future research endeavors will no doubt build upon these insights, potentially incorporating molecular and immunological profiling to further personalize therapy and maximize patient benefit.

Meanwhile, patients diagnosed with locally advanced gastric cancer may look forward to emerging treatment options that strategically amalgamate systemic and local therapies to surmount this formidable disease. Such advances echo the broader commitment within cancer research to transcend conventional boundaries and usher in an era of precision medicine.

The findings reported by Bu, Wang, Wang, and colleagues illuminate a promising therapeutic avenue and reaffirm the critical importance of integrating multi-disciplinary approaches to achieve superior cancer control. This harmonization of chemotherapy and radiotherapy stands poised to redefine standards of care and improve the clinical trajectory for countless individuals afflicted with gastric malignancies.

Subject of Research: Efficacy and safety comparison of XELOX chemotherapy combined with neoadjuvant radiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in locally advanced gastric cancer.

Article Title: Efficacy and safety of XELOX combined with neoadjuvant radiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric cancer.

Article References:
Bu, S., Wang, S., Wang, T. et al. Efficacy and safety of XELOX combined with neoadjuvant radiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced gastric cancer. BMC Cancer 25, 731 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14103-1

Image Credits: Scienmag.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14103-1