Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25609317›Full record

GuidelineSurgical endoscopy2015

Early rectal cancer: the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) clinical consensus conference.

Mario Morino, Mauro Risio, Simon Bach, Regina Beets-Tan, Krzysztof Bujko, Yves Panis, Philip Quirke, Bjorn Rembacken, Eric Rullier, Yutaka Saito and 4 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018
    Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Application of diffusion kurtosis imaging in differentiating T0-T1 from T2 rectal tumors.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

14 authors.

Mario MorinoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Corso A. M. Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy, mario.morino@unito.it.
Mauro Risio
Simon Bach
Regina Beets-Tan
Krzysztof Bujko
Yves Panis
Philip Quirke
Bjorn Rembacken
Eric Rullier
Yutaka Saito
Tonia Young-Fadok
Marco Ettore Allaix
European Association for Endoscopic Surgery
European Society of Coloproctology

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L01629X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe last 30 years have witnessed a significant increase in the diagnosis of early-stage rectal cancer and the development of new strategies to reduce the treatment-related morbidity. Currently, there is no consensus on the definition of early rectal cancer (ERC), and the best management of ERC has not been yet defined. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery in collaboration with the European Society of Coloproctology developed this consensus conference to provide recommendations on ERC diagnosis, staging and treatment based on the available evidence.

methodsA multidisciplinary group of experts selected on their clinical and scientific expertise was invited to critically review the literature and to formulate evidence-based recommendations by the Delphi method. Recommendations were discussed at the plenary session of the 14th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Paris, 26 June 2014, and then posted on the EAES website for open discussion.

resultsTumour biopsy has a low accuracy. Digital rectal examination plays a key role in the pre-operative work-up. Magnification chromoendoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are complementary staging modalities. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery are the two established approaches for local excision (LE) of selected ERC. The role of all organ-sparing approaches including neoadjuvant therapies followed by LE should be formally assessed by randomized controlled trials. Rectal resection and total mesorectal excision is indicated in the presence of unfavourable features at the pathological evaluation of the LE specimen. The laparoscopic approach has better short-term outcomes and similar oncologic results when compared with open surgery.

conclusionsThe management of ERC should always be based on a multidisciplinary approach, aiming to increase the rate of organ-preserving procedures without jeopardizing survival.

Indexed as

Rectal NeoplasmsChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantDelphi TechniqueHumansLaparoscopyNeoadjuvant TherapyRectum

Identifiers

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.