ArticleGastrointestinal cancer research : GCR2012
ACR Appropriateness Criteria®-Recurrent Rectal Cancer.
Article in Gastrointestinal cancer research : GCR, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Review of incomplete macroscopic resections (R2) in rectal cancer: Treatment, prognosis and future perspectives.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Article
- Intraoperative radiotherapy with low energy photons in recurrent colorectal cancer: a single centre retrospective study.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 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
10 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions. These Criteria are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The development and review of these guidelines includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.Local recurrence of rectal cancer can result in devastating symptoms for patients, including intractable pain and discharge. Prior treatment can limit subsequent treatment options. Preoperative 5-FU based chemoradiotherapy is the treatment of choice for patients with a local recurrence who did not receive adjuvant therapy after initial resection or who might have received chemotherapy alone. Chemoradiotherapy followed by evaluation for surgery is the preferred treatment for patients who have undergone previous radiotherapy after surgery. The inclusion of surgery has resulted in the best outcomes in a majority of studies. Palliative chemoradiotherapy is appropriate for patients who have received previous radiotherapy whose recurrent disease is considered inoperable. Radiotherapy can be delivered on a standard or hyperfractionated treatment schedule.Newer systemic treatments have improved response rates and given physicians more options for treating patients in this difficult situation. The use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy is an evolving treatment option. Specialized treatment modalities should be used at institutions with experience in these techniques and preferably in patients enrolled in clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22574231PMC3348710W195573439What 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.