. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 1.

Published in final edited form as: Radiother Oncol. 2019 Nov 9;144:37–45. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.10.003

Table 1.

Study Demographics

Reference	Country	Study design	Years of patient inclusion	Total patients / patients with residual disease	Stage of disease with no. of patients (%)	End points
Chmielik et al. ²⁷, Rutkowski et al.²⁶	Poland	Randomized trial	1999-2002	85^* / 79 (CRT)	cT3-cT4: 85 (100)	Comparison of long course CRT with short course RT in regard to sphincter preservation rate; compare distal intramural spread in 2 different RT groups
Guedj et al. ²⁸	France	Observational prospective	2012-2014	124 / 102	cT2: 9 (7.3) cT3: 94 (75.8) cT4: 9 (7.3) N+: 83 (66.9) N0: 25 (20.2) T- and/or N-stage missing: 28 (22.6)	Intramural and mesorectal cancer spread
Guillem et al. ²⁴	USA	Observational prospective	2000-2004	110^** / 89	cT2: 7 (6.4) cT3: 95 (86.4) cT4: 1 (0.9) N1: 79 (71.8) N0: 23 (20.9) T- and/or N-stage missing: 15 (13.6)	Microscopic patterns of residual disease and circumferential and distal resection margins; identify clinicopathologic factors associated with residual disease
Perez et al.²³	Brazil	Observational retrospective	2009-2011	30 / 30	cT2: 12 (40) cT3: 18 (60) N1: 7 (23.3) N0: 23 (76.7)	Patterns of tumor response
Total				349 / 300

In the paper 86 patients are described as having received chemoradiation; however, one of these patients had only received 6 fractions of 1.8 Gy (total 7.2 Gy) and was thus excluded from our analysis.

^**

In the paper 109 patients are included; however, the individual patient data that was delivered comprised of 110 patients.