Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27997526›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2017

Organ preservation with local excision or active surveillance following chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer.

B Creavin, E Ryan, S T Martin, A Hanly, P R O'Connell, K Sheahan, D C Winter

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

B CreavinDepartment of Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
E RyanDepartment of Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
S T MartinDepartment of Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
A HanlyDepartment of Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
P R O'ConnellDepartment of Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
K SheahanDepartment of Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
D C WinterDepartment of Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland.
St. Vincent's University Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOrgan preservation has been proposed as an alternative to radical surgery for rectal cancer to reduce morbidity and mortality, and to improve functional outcome.

methodsLocally advanced non-metastatic rectal cancers were identified from a prospective database. Patients staged ⩾T3 or any stage N+ were referred for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) (50-54 Gy and 5-fluorouracil), and were reassessed 6-8 weeks post treatment. An active surveillance programme ('watch and wait') was offered to patients who were found to have a complete endoluminal response. Transanal excision was performed in patients who were found to have an objective clinical response and in whom a residual ulcer measured ⩽3 cm. Patients were followed up clinically, endoscopically and radiologically to assess for local recurrence or disease progression.

resultsOf 785 patients with rectal cancer between 2005 and 2015, 362 had non-metastatic locally advanced tumours treated with neoadjuvant CRT. Sixty out of three hundred and sixty-two (16.5%) patients were treated with organ-preserving strategies - 10 with 'watch and wait' and 50 by transanal excision. Fifteen patients were referred for salvage total mesorectal excision post local excision owing to adverse pathological findings. There was no significant difference in overall survival (85.6% vs 93.3%, P=0.414) or disease-free survival rate (78.3% vs 80%, P=0.846) when the outcomes of radical surgery were compared with organ preservation. Tumour regrowth occurred in 4 out of 45 (8.9%) patients who had organ preservation.

conclusionsOrgan preservation for locally advanced rectal cancer is feasible for selected patients who achieve an objective endoluminal response to neoadjuvant CRT. Transanal excision defines the pathological response and refines decision-making.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyWatchful WaitingAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyOrgan Sparing TreatmentsRadiotherapy DosageRectal Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27997526
PMCPMC5243997
OpenAlexW2565579398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.