ArticleSurgical endoscopy2010
The learning curve for endorectal ultrasonography in rectal cancer staging.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Beyond Histologic Staging: Emerging Imaging Strategies in Colorectal Cancer with Special Focus on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2016Review
- Rectal Tumour Staging with Endorectal Ultrasound: Is There Any Difference between Western and Eastern European Countries?Gastroenterology research and practice · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndorectal ultrasound (ERUS) is an emerging technique for preoperative rectal cancer staging. It is an operator-dependent examination with accuracy closely related to endosonographer experience. In this study, we prospectively analyzed our results of ERUS staging for rectal cancer, aiming to determine its accuracy and to define the learning curve of the procedure.
methodsBetween July 2007 and August 2009, consecutive patients with rectal cancer were recruited for preoperative ERUS staging performed by a single colorectal surgeon. We compared results of ERUS tumor (uT) and nodal (uN) staging with pathological staging of surgical specimens in patients who had surgery without neoadjuvant chemoradiation. To evaluate the learning-curve effect on ERUS, patients were divided into two equal halves for analysis (early group and late group).
resultsIn the 26-month study period, 50 patients (36 males) with median age of 67 years (range 47-89 years) underwent ERUS staging. The overall accuracy rates of uT and uN staging were 86 and 66%. For uT staging, 10% of tumors were overstaged and 4% were understaged. For uN staging, 22% of patients were overstaged and 12% were understaged. With experience accumulation from early group to late group, accuracy improvement was observed in uN staging (52 vs. 80%, P = 0.037), while the accuracy rate remained consistently high in uT staging (84 vs. 88%, P = 1.0).
conclusionsERUS was accurate in preoperative staging of rectal cancer. It was an easy-to-learn procedure for accurate tumor staging, but considerable experience was required to attain accuracy for nodal staging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.