Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27510524›Full record

Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2016

Surgical timing after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer, analysis of technique (STARRCAT): results of a feasibility multi-centre randomized controlled trial.

J D Foster, P Ewings, S Falk, E J Cooper, H Roach, N P West, B A Williams-Yesson, G B Hanna, N K Francis, STARRCAT Investigators

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

10 authors.

J D FosterDepartment of Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK.
P EwingsSouthwest Research Design Service, Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust, Taunton, UK.
S FalkUniversity Hospitals Bristol, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol, UK.
E J CooperDepartment of Pathology, Yeovil District Hospital, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK.
H RoachUniversity Hospitals Bristol, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol, UK.
N P WestLeeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, School of Medicine, St James's University Hospital, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
B A Williams-YessonDepartment of Research and Development, St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK.
G B HannaDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK.
N K FrancisDepartment of Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, UK. nader.francis@ydh.nhs.uk.
STARRCAT Investigators

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-1010-23326
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal time of rectal resection after long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) remains unclear. A feasibility study was undertaken for a multi-centre randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of the interval after chemoradiotherapy on the technical complexity of surgery.

methodsPatients with rectal cancer were randomized to either a 6- or 12-week interval between CRT and surgery between June 2012 and May 2014 (ISRCTN registration number: 88843062). For blinded technical complexity assessment, the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis technique was used to quantify technical errors enacted within video recordings of operations. Other measured outcomes included resection completeness, specimen quality, radiological down-staging, tumour cell density down-staging and surgeon-reported technical complexity.

resultsThirty-one patients were enrolled: 15 were randomized to 6 and 16-12 weeks across 7 centres. Fewer eligible patients were identified than had been predicted. Of 23 patients who underwent resection, mean 12.3 errors were observed per case at 6 weeks vs. 10.7 at 12 weeks (p = 0.401). Other measured outcomes were similar between groups.

conclusionsThe feasibility of measurement of operative performance of rectal cancer surgery as an endpoint was confirmed in this exploratory study. Recruitment of sufficient numbers of patients represented a challenge, and a proportion of patients did not proceed to resection surgery. These results suggest that interval after CRT may not substantially impact upon surgical technical performance.

Indexed as

Time-to-TreatmentAgedChemoradiotherapyColectomyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyRectal NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeChemoradiotherapyFeasibilityRectal cancerTechnical performance

Identifiers

PMID27510524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.