ArticleWorld journal of surgery2013
Extended lymphadenectomy in colon cancer is debatable.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multicenter prospective observational study of lymph node metastasis patterns and short-term outcomes of extended lymphadenectomy in right-sided colon cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Article
- Should there be a specific length of the colon-rectum segment to be resected for an adequate number of lymph nodes in cases of colorectal cancers? A retrospective multi-center study.Turkish journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Complete mesocolic excision and extended (D3) lymphadenectomy for colonic cancer: is it worth that extra effort? A review of the literature.International journal of colorectal disease · 2016Review
- Is low tie ligation truly reproducible in colorectal cancer surgery? Anatomical study of the inferior mesenteric artery division branches.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extended lymphadenectomy has gained considerable attention as an adjunct to conventional colon cancer surgery with the hope that it may potentially decrease local recurrence rates and improve cancer-specific outcome measures. Despite the enthusiasm surrounding these techniques, it is difficult to establish any additional survival benefit associated with more comprehensive lymphadenectomy strategies when these are performed in addition to conventional colon cancer surgery. Furthermore, these techniques remain unproven by large randomized clinical trials. The appropriate indications for performing extended lymphadenectomy also remain unclear, and there is a lack of standardization with regard to surgical technique. Moreover, there are a number of confounding factors that frequently receive little attention when oncological outcome measures are reported following extended lymphadenectomy in the setting of colon cancer. The purpose of this review is to outline these confounding issues and discuss their impact on reports describing cancer-specific outcome measures following the use of extended lymphadenectomy techniques. Furthermore, this review proposes that in light of the available published evidence, the role of radical lymphadenectomy is currently unproven, with large randomized clinical trials required in the future to determine whether there is a survival benefit for colon cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23652354What 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.