ArticleSurgery today2017
A comparison of the localization of rectal carcinomas according to the general rules of the Japanese classification of colorectal carcinoma (JCCRC) and Western guidelines.
Article in Surgery today, 2017. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative FOLFOX in resectable locally advanced rectal cancer can be a safe and promising strategy: the R-NAC-01 study.Surgery today · 2019Trial
- Classification of rectal cancer according to recurrence types - comparison of Japanese guidelines and Western guidelines.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Safety and efficacy of preoperative mFOLFOX6 regimen chemotherapy for locally resectable advanced rectal cancer.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2021Article
- Human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 infection is not detected in rectal carcinoma.Infectious agents and cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the localization of rectal cancers as classified according to the general rules of the Japanese classification of colorectal carcinoma (JCCRC) and also according to the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, which are based on rigid endoscopic measurements.
methodsThe medical records of patients scheduled to receive curative surgery for histologically proven rectal adenocarcinoma during 2009-2015 were investigated (n = 230). Rigid proctoscopy was performed in patients with rectal cancer located in the upper (Ra) or lower (Rb) division using double-contrast barium enema.
resultsThe median values of height from the anal verge were 7.5 cm (range 2-12) and 3 cm (0-9.5) on rigid proctoscopy for cancers assigned as Ra and Rb, respectively. All 159 cancers at Ra or Rb were located within 12 cm from the anal verge by rigid proctoscopy, while only 79.7% of Ra or 82.1% of Rb cancers were located in the mid (5.1-10 cm) or low (≤5 cm) rectum, respectively.
conclusionRa and Rb cancers are deemed to be rectal cancers according to NCCN guidelines, but these classifications are not interchangeable with mid- and low-rectal cancers, respectively, according to the ESMO guidelines.
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.