ArticleJournal of radiation research2017
Reduced pelvic field sparing anastomosis for postoperative radiotherapy in selected patients with mid-upper rectal cancer.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photobleaching-mediated charge-convertible cyclodextrin nanoparticles achieve deep tumour penetration for rectal cancer theranostics.Nature nanotechnology · 2024Article
- Article
- Improvement in bladder volume reproducibility using A-mode portable ultrasound bladder scanner in moderate-hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Management of the adenocarcinoma of the upper rectum: a reappraisal.Updates in surgery · 2021Review
- Mapping of lateral pelvic lymph node recurrences in rectal cancer: a radiation oncologist's perspective.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to report the clinical results of reduced pelvic field radiotherapy (RT), excluding the anastomotic site, after total mesorectal excision in selected patients with rectal cancer. Between 2011 and 2014, 99 patients underwent upfront surgery for clinically less-advanced tumors but were finally diagnosed as pT3/N+. Among them, 50 patients with mid-upper rectal cancer who received postoperative RT with a reduced pelvic field were included in this retrospective review. This group was composed of patients with high seated tumors, complete resection with a clear circumferential resection margin, and no complication during surgery. We investigated treatment outcomes, toxicity and the effect of RT-field reduction on organs-at risk in 5 randomly selected patients. During the median follow-up period of 42 months (range: 15-59 months), tumors recurred in 9 patients (18%). The 3-year overall and disease-free survival were 98% and 81%, respectively. Distant metastasis was the dominant failure pattern (n = 8, 16%), while no recurrences occurred at or near anastomotic sites. No anastomotic complications were found on pelvic examination, images and/or colonoscopy. Reported acute and late RT-related toxicities were mostly mild to moderate, with only small numbers of Grade 3 toxicities. None of the patients developed Grade 4-5 acute or late toxicity. With a caudally reduced field, 64% reduction in absolute anastomotic exposure at the maximum dose was achieved compared with the traditional whole-pelvic field (P = 0.008). The reduced pelvic field RT was able to minimize late anastomotic complication without increasing its recurrence in selected patients with mid-upper rectal cancer in the postoperative setting.
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.