ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2015
Long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic vs open surgery for stages II and III rectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- COL10A1 allows stratification of invasiveness of colon cancer and associates to extracellular matrix and immune cell enrichment in the tumor parenchyma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Non-Metastatic Rectal Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
- Penicillin disrupts mitochondrial function and induces autophagy in colorectal cancer cell lines.Oncology letters · 2021Article
- Survival outcomes following laparoscopic vs open surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer: a two-center cohort study with propensity score matching.Gastroenterology report · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic Approach to Rectal Cancer-The New Standard?Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer reveals comparable oncological outcome even in context of worse short-term results-long-term analysis of nearly 500 patients from two high-volume centers.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- High expression of COL10A1 is associated with poor prognosis in colorectal cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2018Article
- Two-port laparoscopic anterior resection through a self-made glove device versus conventional laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparison of short-term surgical results.World journal of surgical oncology · 2016Article
- Watch and wait approach to rectal cancer: A review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2015Review
- The Feasibility and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Extended Total Mesorectal Excision for Locally Advanced Lower Rectal Cancer.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the 5-year survival after laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for stages II and III rectal cancer.
methodsThis study enrolled 406 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for stages II and III rectal cancer between January 2000 and December 2009 [laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR), n = 152; open rectal resection (ORR), n = 254]. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, pathological outcomes, postoperative recovery, and 5-year survival outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsMost of the clinical characteristics were similar except age (59 years vs 55 years, P = 0.033) between the LRR group and ORR group. The proportion of anterior resection was higher in the LRR group than that in the ORR group (81.6% vs 66.1%, P = 0.001). The LRR group had less estimated blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, P < 0.001) and a lower rate of blood transfusion (4.6% vs 11.8%, P = 0.019) compared to the ORR group. The pathological outcomes of the two groups were comparable. The LRR group was associated with faster recovery of bowel function (2.8 d vs 3.7 d, P < 0.001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (11.7 d vs 13.7 d, P < 0.001). The median follow-up time was 63 mo in the LRR group and 65 mo in the ORR group. As for the survival outcomes, the 5-year local recurrence rate (16.0% vs 16.4%, P = 0.753), 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate (63.0% vs 63.1%, P = 0.589), and 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (68.1% vs 63.5%, P = 0.682) were comparable between the LRR group and the ORR group. Stage by stage, there were also no statistical differences between the LRR group and the ORR group in terms of the 5-year local recurrence rate (stage II: 6.3% vs 8.7%, P = 0.623; stage III: 26.4% vs 23.2%, P = 0.747), 5-year DFS rate (stage II: 77.5% vs 77.6%, P = 0.462; stage III: 46.5% vs 50.9%, P = 0.738), and 5-year OS rate (stage II: 81.4% vs 74.3%, P = 0.242; stage III: 53.9% vs 54.1%, P = 0.459).
conclusionLRR for stages II and III rectal cancer can yield comparable long-term survival while achieving short-term benefits compared to open surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.