ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2017
Defining the distal margin of rectal cancer for surgical planning.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photobleaching-mediated charge-convertible cyclodextrin nanoparticles achieve deep tumour penetration for rectal cancer theranostics.Nature nanotechnology · 2024Article
- Managing Colorectal Cancer from Ethology to Interdisciplinary Treatment: The Gains and Challenges of Modern Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Development and validation of an MRI-based radiomic nomogram to distinguish between good and poor responders in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Article
- Optimized Parameters of Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Prediction of the Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.BioMed research international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate measurement of the distal rectal tumor margin is essential in selecting the appropriate surgical procedure. However, there is no standard measurement method. The National Cancer Institute consensus group recommends use of the anal verge (AV) as a landmark, and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology recommends use of the anorectal ring (ARR). In addition, whether measurements should be made on double contrast barium enema (BE) radiographs or magnetic resonance (MR) images remains controversial. We measured the distal tumor margin on both BE and MR images obtained preoperatively from 52 patients who underwent sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer. The distances from the distal end of the tumor to the AV and the ARR were measured on both types of images, and the variability was investigated by Bland-Altman analysis. The mean distance from the tumor to the AV was 8.9 cm on the BE radiographs and 7.7 cm on the MR images (P=0.013). The mean distances to the ARR were 6.8 and 5.6 cm, respectively (P=0.070). Significant proportional bias was shown as the measured distances increased, the difference between the BE- and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based measurements increased. Use of one or the other landmark did not affect selection of the appropriate surgical procedure. We conclude that an approximate 1-cm underestimation should be taken into account when MRI-based measurement of the distal rectal tumor margin is used to choose between sphincter-saving resection and abdominoperineal resection.
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.