IRCT20230604058384N1 IRCT 2023-06-14 Tehran University of Medical Sciences Comparison of the Clinical Response of Total Neoadjuvant Treatment of Two Methods of Long-term or Short-term Chemoradiotherapy in Rectal Cancer TEHRAN Comparison of the Clinical Response of Total nEoadjuvant Treatment of Two Methods of Long-term or Short-term cHemoRadiotherapy Followed by Consolidation Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced rectAl Cancer (TEHRAN) , a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial 2023-08-23 anticipated 114 Complete https://irct.ir/trial/70545 interventional Randomization: Randomized, Blinding: Not blinded, Placebo: Not used, Assignment: Parallel, Purpose: Treatment, Other design features: For the treatment of rectal cancer, there are primarily two radiation techniques. Long-term radiotherapy is 50.4 Gy delivered in 28 fractions, while short-term radiotherapy is 25 Gy delivered in 5 parts. These two approaches have not before been compared to one another, and the goal of the study is to accomplish just that, Randomization description: For randomization the permuted block randomization method was employed, in which blocks of four parts were formed, and the sequence where each part was assigned to each group was determined by random numbers. The randomization process was carried out using the web based application sealedenvelope.com. 2 Rectal Cancer. Intervention 1: Intervention group: Long-course radiation therapy with a dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 sessions along with concurrent chemotherapy with capecitabine at a dose of 825 mg/m2 and then consolidation chemotherapy with XELOX regimen for 6 cycles. Intervention 2: Intervention group: Short-course radiation therapy with a dose of 25 Gy in 5 sessions along with concurrent chemotherapy with capecitabine at a dose of 825 mg/m2 and then consolidation chemotherapy with XELOX regimen for 6 cycles. No - There is not a plan to make this available Justification or reason for not sharing IPD is the risk that the original authors could not exploit the entire potential of the data they obtained, possible failures in patients’ privacy protection, technical barriers such as the lack of standard formats, and possible data misinterpretation