Re-evaluating the role of pelvic radiation in the age of modern precision medicine and systemic therapy

Table 1 Key characteristic of trials investigating neoadjuvant systemic therapy alone without radiation in locally advanced rectal cancer

Study	ID	Design	LARC	Study group	Comparator group(s)	mFU	pCR (%)	Local control (%)	OS (%)
FOWARC[4]	NCT01211210	Phase 3	Suitable for curative resection	FOLFOX	CCRT	45.2	6.5 vs (14 or 27.5); P 0.05	3-year LRR 8.3 vs (8 or 7); P = 0.873	3-year 90.7 vs (91.3 or 89.1); P = 0.971
PROSPECT[6]	NCT01515787	Phase 3	T2N1, T3N0, T3N1	FOLFOX	CCRT	58	21.9 vs 24.3; P value NA	5-year LR 1.8% vs 1.6%; P value > 0.05	5-year 89.5 vs 90.2; P value > 0.05
GRECCAR4[9]	NCT01333709	Phase 2 RCT	T3d with predictive CRM 1 mm	FOLFIRINOX	CCRT	65.7	(10 or 13.5) vs (58 or 20); P value NA	NA	5-year (90 or 84.3) vs (93.3 or 86.1); P value > 0.05
CONVERT[10]	NCT02288195	Phase 3	cT2N+ or cT3-4Nany uninvolved mesorectal fascia	CAPOX	CCRT	NA	11 vs 13.8; P = 0.33	NA	NA
19-288[5]	NCT04165772	Phase 2	Mismatch repair–deficient	Dostarlimab	NA	NA	NA	100	100

LARC: Locally advanced rectal cancer; LR: Local recurrence; LRR: Locoregional recurrence; mFU: Median follow up (in months); pCR: Pathological complete response; OS: Overall survival; CCRT: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy; CRM: Circumferential resection margin; NA: Not available; RCT: Randomized controlled trial.