Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26833471›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of colorectal disease2016

Complete mesocolic excision and extended (D3) lymphadenectomy for colonic cancer: is it worth that extra effort? A review of the literature.

Andrew Emmanuel, Amyn Haji

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of colorectal disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04434508 (Open Versus Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy With Complete Mesocolic Excision and Central Vascular Ligation for Right Colon Cancer. A Randomized Prospective Study.), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT04434508 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Open Versus Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy With Complete Mesocolic Excision and Central Vascular Ligation for Right Colon Cancer. A Randomized Prospective Study.

TypeinterventionalSponsorMansoura UniversityRan2017 to 2020Enrolled90ConditionsColonic CancerArmslaparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME and central v, Open right hemicolectomy with CME and central v
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Young-onset colorectal cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrew EmmanuelDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, King's College Hospital, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 2nd Floor Hambelden Wing, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK. aemmanuel@nhs.net.
Amyn HajiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, King's College Hospital, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 2nd Floor Hambelden Wing, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecent interest in complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) or extended (D3) lymphadenectomy (EL) for curative resection of colon cancer has been driven by published series from experienced practitioners showing excellent survival outcomes and low recurrence rates. In this article, we attempt to clarify the role of CME or EL in modern colorectal surgery.

methodsA narrative review of the evidence for CME and EL in the curative treatment of colon cancer.

resultsThe principal of CME surgery, similar to total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, is the removal of all lymphatic, vascular, and neural tissue in the drainage area of the tumour in a complete mesocolic envelope with intact mesentery, peritoneum and encasing fascia. Extended (D3) lymphadenectomy (EL) is based on similar principles. Sound anatomical and oncological arguments are made to support the principles of removing the tumor contained within an intact mesocolic facial envelope together with an extended lymph node harvest. Excellent oncological outcomes with minimal morbidity and mortality have been reported. This has led to calls for the standardisation of surgery for colon cancer using CME. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the prognostic benefit of greater lymph node harvests and the evidence for an oncological benefit of CME is limited by methodology flaws and several potential confounding factors.

conclusionsAlthough there is a reasonable anatomical and oncological basis for these techniques, there are no randomised controlled trials from which to draw confident conclusions and there is insufficient consistent high quality evidence to recommend widespread adoption of CME.

Indexed as

Lymph Node ExcisionColonic NeoplasmsHumansLaparoscopyLigationLymph NodesMesocolonCancer recurrenceCancer survivalColon cancerComplete mesocolic excisionExtended lymphadenectomy

Identifiers

PMID26833471
OpenAlexW2265567565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.