Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23192705›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2013

The outcome of rectal cancer after early salvage TME following TEM compared with primary TME: a case-matched study.

K Levic, O Bulut, P Hesselfeldt, S Bülow

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Completion Total Mesorectal Excision: A Case-Matched Comparison With Primary Resection.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K LevicDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology, Hvidovre University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Kettegaards Allé 30, 2650 Hvidovre, Copenhagen, Denmark.
O Bulut
P Hesselfeldt
S Bülow
University of Copenhagen · DKHvidovre Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) allows locally complete resection of early rectal cancer as an alternative to conventional radical surgery. In case of unfavourable histology after TEM, or positive resection margins, salvage surgery can be performed. However, it is unclear if the results are equivalent to primary treatment with total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether there is a difference in outcome between patients who underwent early salvage resection with TME after TEM, and those who underwent primary TME for rectal cancer.

methodsFrom 1997 to 2011, early salvage surgery with TME after TEM was performed in 25 patients in our institution. These patients were compared with 25 patients who underwent primary TME, matched according to gender, age (±2 years), cancer stage and operative procedure. Data were obtained from the patients' charts and reviewed retrospectively. No patients received preoperative chemotherapy. Perioperative data and oncological outcome were analysed. The Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the results between the two groups.

resultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups in median operating time (P = 0.39), median blood loss (P = 0.19) or intraoperative complications (P = 1.00). The 30-day mortality was 8 % (n = 2) among patients who underwent salvage TME after TEM, and no patients died in the primary TME group (P = 0.49). There was no significant difference between two groups of patients in the median number of harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.34), median circumferential resection margin (CRM) (P = 0.99) or the completeness of the mesorectal fascia plane. No local recurrences occurred among the patients with salvage TME, and there were 2 patients (8 %) with local recurrences among the patients with primary TME (P = 0.49). Distant metastasis occurred in one patient (4 %) after salvage TME and in 3 patients (12 %) with primary TME (P = 0.61). The median follow-up time was 25 months (3-126) for patients who underwent salvage TME and 19 months (3-73) for patients after primary TME.

conclusionsNo difference was found in outcome between patients with rectal cancer undergoing salvage TME after TEM, those undergoing primary TME. In selected patients, TEM can therefore be chosen as a primary treatment, since failure of treatment and subsequent conventional resection appears not to compromise the outcome.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedAged, 80 and overAnal CanalCase-Control StudiesDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMicrosurgeryMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPatient Selection

Identifiers

PMID23192705
OpenAlexW2073609054

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.