Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24790654›Full record

ReviewJournal of Cancer2014

Early detection of colorectal cancer recurrence in patients undergoing surgery with curative intent: current status and challenges.

Patrick E Young, Craig M Womeldorph, Eric K Johnson, Justin A Maykel, Bjorn Brucher, Alex Stojadinovic, Itzhak Avital, Aviram Nissan, Scott R Steele

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05444491 (Based on the Application of Peripheral Blood Polygene Methylation Markers in Postoperative Recurrence Monitoring of Colorectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 79 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT05444491 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Based on the Application of Peripheral Blood Polygene Methylation Markers in Postoperative Recurrence Monitoring of Colorectal Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorSinglera Genomics Inc.Ran2022 to 2026Enrolled800ConditionsColorectal Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Contemporary Use of ctDNA for the Colorectal Surgeon.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

19 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Patrick E Young1. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA ; 3. Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of Health Science, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Craig M Womeldorph2. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA ; 3. Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of Health Science, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Eric K Johnson4. Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Center, Tacoma, WA, USA.
Justin A Maykel5. Division of Colorectal Surgery, University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA, USA.
Bjorn Brucher6. Bon Secours Cancer Institute, Richmond VA, USA.
Alex Stojadinovic6. Bon Secours Cancer Institute, Richmond VA, USA.
Itzhak Avital6. Bon Secours Cancer Institute, Richmond VA, USA.
Aviram Nissan7. Department of Surgery, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Scott R Steele4. Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Center, Tacoma, WA, USA.
Virginia Cancer Institute · USMadigan Army Medical Center · USHadassah Medical Center · ILSan Antonio Military Medical Center · USUMass Memorial Medical Center · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite advances in neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, attention to proper surgical technique, and improved pathological staging for both the primary and metastatic lesions, almost half of all colorectal cancer patients will develop recurrent disease. More concerning, this includes ~25% of patients with theoretically curable node-negative, non-metastatic Stage I and II disease. Given the annual incidence of colorectal cancer, approximately 150,000 new patients are candidates each year for follow-up surveillance. When combined with the greater population already enrolled in a surveillance protocol, this translates to a tremendous number of patients at risk for recurrence. It is therefore imperative that strategies aim for detection of recurrence as early as possible to allow initiation of treatment that may still result in cure. Yet, controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy (high-intensity vs. traditional), ideal testing regimen, and overall effectiveness. While benefits may involve earlier detection of recurrence, psychological welfare improvement, and greater overall survival, this must be weighed against the potential disadvantages including more invasive tests, higher rates of reoperation, and increased costs. In this review, we will examine the current options available and challenges surrounding colorectal cancer surveillance and early detection of recurrence.

Indexed as

CEAcolonoscopycolorectal cancerEUSrecurrence

Identifiers

PMID24790654
PMCPMC3982039
OpenAlexW2170859351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.