ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2015
Detection of Polyps After Resection of Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bile acids as carcinogens in the colon and at other sites in the gastrointestinal system.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023Review
- Resting heart rate is an independent predictor of advanced colorectal adenoma recurrence.PloS one · 2018Article
- Frequency of colonic adenomatous polyps in a tertiary hospital in Mumbai.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2016Article
- Surveillance Colonoscopy After a Resection of Colorectal Cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBecause colonoscopy after colorectal cancer surgery is important for detecting synchronous or metachronous colorectal neoplasms, we designed this study to investigate, by using postoperative colonoscopy, the miss rate for and the location of polyps remaining after colorectal cancer surgery.
methodsIn a prospectively-collected patient database, 264 patients were shown to have undergone a colorectal cancer resection between May 2012 and June 2013. Of these, 116 who had received a complete colonoscopy preoperatively and postoperatively were included in this study.
resultsOf these 116 patients, 68 were males and 48 were females; their mean age was 63 years. The mean time after surgery at which postoperative colonoscopy was performed was 7.1 months (range, 3-15 months). On postoperative colonoscopy, a total of 125 polyps were detected. Of these, there were no cancerous lesions; 46 (36.8%) were neoplastic polyps, and 79 (63.2%) were nonneoplastic polyps. Fifty-nine polyps (47.2%) and 15 polyps (12%) were located in the proximal and the distal parts of the anastomosis, respectively. The miss rates for the total numbers of polyps and of neoplastic polyps remaining after surgery were 37.4% and 24.2%, respectively. The incidence of neoplastic polyps increased during postoperative colonoscopy as it had during preoperative colonoscopy (r = 0.164, P = 0.048).
conclusionColonoscopic surveillance after colorectal cancer resection results in the detection of pathologic polyps in one-fourth of the cases. During postoperative colonoscopy, careful examination of the proximal colon is necessary. Patients in whom multiple neoplastic polyps had been detected during preoperative colonoscopy require careful and thorough follow-up.
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.