Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26576139›Full record

ArticleIntestinal research2015

Clinical Features and Prognosis of Resectable Primary Colorectal Signet-Ring Cell Carcinoma.

Ho-Su Lee, Jae Seung Soh, Seohyun Lee, Jung Ho Bae, Kyung-Jo Kim, Byong Duk Ye, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Seung-Jae Myung, Suk-Kyun Yang, Sun A Kim and 5 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intestinal research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ho-Su LeeDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Jae Seung SohDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Seohyun LeeDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Jung Ho BaeDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Kyung-Jo KimDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Byong Duk YeDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong-Sik ByeonDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Seung-Jae MyungDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Suk-Kyun YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Sun A KimDepartment of Pathology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Young Soo ParkDepartment of Pathology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Seok-Byung LimDepartment of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Jin Cheon KimDepartment of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Chang Sik YuDepartment of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Dong-Hoon YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Ulsan College · KRAsan Medical Center · KRUniversity of Ulsan · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsWe attempted to investigate the prognosis of signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRC) patients who underwent curative surgery by comparing them with age-, sex-, and stage-matched non-mucinous adenocarcinoma (NMAC) patients.

methodsBetween January 2003 and December 2011, 19 patients with primary SRC of the colorectum underwent curative surgery. Four SRC patients under the age of 40 were excluded, and the clinicopathological data of 15 patients (7 men; median age, 56 years) were reviewed and compared with the data of 75 NMAC patients matched by age, sex, and pathologic stage.

resultsThe median follow-up duration was 30.1 months for the SRC group and 43.7 months for the NMAC group (P=0.141). Involvement of the left side of the colon (73.3% vs. 26.7%, P=0.003) and infiltrative lesions such as Borrmann types 3 and 4 (85.7% vs. 24.0%, P=0.001) were more common in the SRC group than in the NMAC group. The five-year overall survival rate was significantly lower for patients with SRC than for those with NMAC (46.0% vs. 88.7%, hazard ratio, 6.99; 95% confidence interval, 2.33-20.95, P=0.001).

conclusionsPatients with even resectable primary colorectal SRC had a poorer prognosis than age-, sex-, and stage-matched colorectal NMAC patients.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaCarcinoma, signet-ring cellColorectal neoplasmsGeneral surgerySurvival

Identifiers

PMID26576139
PMCPMC4641860
OpenAlexW2271974346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.