ReviewAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England1992
Surgical excision alone is adequate treatment for primary colorectal cancer.
Review in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transanal local resection for benign and malignant rectal tumours.International journal of colorectal disease · 1995Trial
- Predictive value of IL-18 and IL-10 in the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer.Oncology letters · 2019Article
- Mass spectrometry protein expression profiles in colorectal cancer tissue associated with clinico-pathological features of disease.BMC cancer · 2010Article
- Analysis of post-operative changes in serum protein expression profiles from colorectal cancer patients by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: a pilot methodological study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2010Article
- Contribution of plasminogen activators and their inhibitors to the survival prognosis of patients with Dukes' stage B and C colorectal cancer.British journal of cancer · 1997Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This debate examines the arguments for and against the proposal that surgical excision alone is adequate treatment for primary colorectal cancer. The arguments in favour are that the results from curative surgery are excellent and that despite many trials of adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy, the proposed benefits remain unproven. Recent improvements in surgical technique, particularly for dissection of rectal tumours, have shown the way towards further improvement using surgery alone, and it is clear from a national survey that technical factors related to individual surgeons play a large part in determining recurrence rates. With optimum primary treatment, surgical excision alone is indeed adequate therapy. The arguments against this motion are that although a considerable number of patients do survive with surgery, the 5-year survival rate is poor when there is extensive local invasion or lymphatic metastases. Surgery starts therapy by reducing the tumour load, but other modalities are required to destroy the cells which might subsequently develop into metastases. Trial results with adjuvant therapy are encouraging, although many contain too few patients. We cannot be content with the results of treatment of Dukes' Stage B and C tumours; more trials are needed to determine the best treatment for these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
1736798PMC2497502W298631012What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.