ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2015
Oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer with close distal resection margins: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Narrow and Infiltrated Distal Margin After Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer on Patients' Outcomes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2022Review
- Association of levels of metabolites with the safe margin of rectal cancer surgery: a metabolomics study.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- The multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Review
- Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on distal spread of low rectal cancer located close to the anus.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Article
- The Influence of the Distal Resection Margin Length on Local Recurrence and long- term Survival in Patients with Rectal Cancer after Chemoradiotherapy and Sphincter- Preserving Rectal Resection.Radiology and oncology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe assurance of a negative resection margin is significant in rectal cancer as it indicates a reduced risk of local recurrence; thus, sufficient length of the resection margin is strongly required. The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between the length of the distal resection margin (DRM) and local recurrence or survival rate and to evaluate the possibility of performing sphincter-conserving surgery.
methodsThe medical records of 218 rectal cancer patients were analyzed. Patients were classified into three groups according to the length of the DRM as follows: group 1, DRM < 1 cm; group 2, 1 cm ≤ DRM ≤ 2 cm; and group 3, DRM > 2 cm.
resultsOf 218 patients enrolled, 81 were in group 1, 66 in group 2, and 71 in group 3. The 5-year survival rates were 78.2%, 78.2%, and 76.8% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and there were no statistically significant differences in survival (P = 0.913). Local recurrence was found in 2 patients in group 1, 1 patient in group 2, and 1 patient in group 3; there were no statistically significant differences in local recurrence (P = 0.908).
conclusionA DRM of < 1 cm did not impair the oncologic outcomes of rectal cancer patients. Our results indicated that surgeons should keep in mind to consider the option of sphincter-conserving surgery with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy even in very low rectal cancer.
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.