Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23270946›Full record

SynthesisSurgical oncology2013

Intraoperative radiotherapy in colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of techniques, long-term outcomes, and complications.

Reza Mirnezami, George J Chang, Prajnan Das, Kandiah Chandrakumaran, Paris Tekkis, Ara Darzi, Alexander H Mirnezami

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 130 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Reza MirnezamiSection of Biosurgery & Surgical Technology, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, 10th Floor QEQM Building, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK.
George J Chang
Prajnan Das
Kandiah Chandrakumaran
Paris Tekkis
Ara Darzi
Alexander H Mirnezami
Imperial College London · GBThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USBasingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital · GBSt. Mary's Hospital · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Optimizing Treatment of Rectal Cancer Using a Markov Decision ModelK07CA133187 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI CHANG, GEORGE J · 2009 to 2013
$853k
Cancer Research UK C28503/A10013NCI NIH HHS K07 CA133187NCI NIH HHS K07-CA1333187
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe precise contribution of IORT to the management of locally advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC) remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the value of IORT in this setting.

methodsStudies published between 1965 and 2011 that reported outcomes after IORT for advanced or recurrent CRC were identified by an electronic literature search. Studies were assessed for methodological quality and design, and evaluated for technique of IORT delivery, oncological outcomes, and complications following IORT. Outcomes were analysed with fixed-effect and random-effect model meta-analyses and heterogeneity and publication bias examined.

results29 studies comprising 14 prospective and 15 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed, yielding a total of 3003 patients. The indication for IORT was locally advanced disease in 1792 patients and locally recurrent disease in 1211 patients. Despite heterogeneity in methodology and reporting practice, IORT is principally applied for the treatment of close or positive margins. When comparative studies were evaluated, a significant effect favouring improved local control (OR 0.22; 95% CI = 0.05-0.86; p = 0.03), disease free survival (HR 0.51; 95% CI = 0.31-0.85; p = 0.009), and overall survival (HR 0.33; 95% CI = 0.2-0.54; p = 0.001) was noted with no increase in total (OR 1.13; 95% CI = 0.77-1.65; p = 0.57), urologic (OR 1.35; 95% CI = 0.84-2.82; p = 0.47), or anastomotic complications (OR 0.94; 95% CI = 0.42-2.1; p = 0.98). Increased wound complications were noted after IORT (OR 1.86; 95% CI = 1.03-3.38; p = 0.049).

conclusionsDespite methodological weaknesses in the studies evaluated, our results suggest that IORT may improve oncological outcomes in advanced and recurrent CRC.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalCombined Modality TherapyHumansIntraoperative CareRadiotherapy DosageTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID23270946
PMCPMC4663079
OpenAlexW2039421566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.