ArticleRadiology and oncology2011
Comparison of survival of patients receiving laparoscopic and open radical resection for stage II colon cancer.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elevated postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen guides adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer: a multicentre cohort retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a case-control study.Radiology and oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to compare the survival of patients receiving laparoscopic vs. open radical resection for stage II colon cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsTwo hundred and twenty patients with stage II colon cancer were enrolled from Beijing Chaoyang Hospital of Capital Medical University from January 2000 to December 2009, including 61 patients in the laparoscopic radical resection group and 159 patients in the open radical resection group. The survival data in both groups were compared using the log rank test based on Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the 3-year survival (88.5% vs. 80.5%; X(2)=1.98, P=0.159) and the 5-year survival (81.9% vs. 69.2%; X(2)=1.98, P=0.159) between both groups. However, statistically significant difference was found in median overall survival (mOS), which was 102.6 (95% CI: 76.8-122.7) months in the laparoscopic group and 90.0 (95% CI: 70.4-109.6) months in the open radical resection group (X(2)=4.183, P=0.041). mOS was 96 (95% CI: 68.6-111.4) months and 92.6 (95% CI: 56.8-107.2) months in those with and without postoperative chemotherapy, respectively (X(2)=6.389, P=0.011). For patients older than 75 years the mOS was 90.0 (95% CI: 25.3-105.0) months and 83.4 (95% CI: 13.1-96.9) months in the laparoscopic and open group, respectively. The difference between the both groups was statistically significant (X(2)=6.191, P=0.013).
conclusionsThe mOS of patients receiving laparoscopic radical resection was better than open radical resection for stage II colon cancer, especially for patients over 75 years old.
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.