Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22903270›Full record

Trial reportSurgery today2012

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for TNM stage III colon cancer: results of a prospective multicenter study in Italy.

Mario Guerrieri, Roberto Campagnacci, Angelo De Sanctis, Giovanni Lezoche, Paolo Massucco, Massimo Summa, Rosaria Gesuita, Lorenzo Capussotti, Giuseppe Spinoglio, Emanuele Lezoche

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgery today, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Prognostic factors of surgically-treated patients with cancer of the right colon: a ten years' experience of a single universitary institution.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2015
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mario GuerrieriClinica di Chirurgia Generale e Metodologia Chirurgica, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona-Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Conca 1, 60121, Ancona, Italy.
Roberto Campagnacci
Angelo De Sanctis
Giovanni Lezoche
Paolo Massucco
Massimo Summa
Rosaria Gesuita
Lorenzo Capussotti
Giuseppe Spinoglio
Emanuele Lezoche
Marche Polytechnic University · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Nazionale SS. Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo · ITCandiolo Cancer Institute · ITOspedali Riuniti di Ancona · ITSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThere is still debate about the practicality of performing laparoscopic colectomy instead of open colectomy for patients with curable cancer, although laparoscopic surgery is now being performed even for patients with advanced colon cancer. We compared the long-term results of laparoscopic versus open colectomy for TNM stage III carcinoma of the colon in a large series of patients followed up for at least 3 years.

methodsThe subjects of this prospective non-randomized multicentric study were 290 consecutive patients, who underwent open surgery (OS group; n = 164) or laparoscopic surgery (LS group; n = 126) between 1994 and 2005, at one of the four surgical centers. The same surgical techniques were used for the laparoscopic and open approaches to right and left colectomy. The distribution of TNM substages (III A, III B, IIIC) as well as the grading of carcinomas (G1, G2, G3) were similar in each arm of the study. The median follow-up periods were 76.9 and 58.0 months after OS and LS, respectively.

resultsThere were 10 (6.1 %) versus 9 (7.1 %) deaths unrelated to cancer, 15 (9.1 %) versus 5 (4 %) cases of local recurrence, 7 (4.2 %) versus 5 (4 %) cases of peritoneal carcinosis, and 37 (22.5 %) versus 14 (11.1 %) cases of metastases in the OS and LS groups, respectively. There was also one case of port-site recurrence after LS (0.8 %). The OS group had a significantly higher probability of local recurrence and metastases (p < 0.001) with a significant higher probability of cancer-related death (p = 0.001) than the LS group.

conclusionsThese findings support that LS is safe and effective for advanced carcinoma of the colon. Although the LS group in this study had a significantly better long-term outcome than the OS group, further investigations are needed to draw a definitive conclusion.

Indexed as

AgedAge FactorsColectomyColonic NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansItalyLaparoscopyLaparotomyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID22903270
OpenAlexW2053384522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.