ArticleEndoscopy international open2017
Location of colorectal cancer: colonoscopy versus surgery. Yield of colonoscopy in predicting actual location.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transanal total mesorectal excision: how are we doing so far?Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2019Article
- The relationship between colon polyps and colonic diverticulosis: a retrospective review.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsRecent studies suggest that differences in biological characteristics and risk factors across cancer site within the colon and rectum may translate to differences in survival. It can be challenging at times to determine the precise anatomical location of a lesion with a luminal view during colonoscopy. The aim of this study is to determine if there is a significant difference between the location of colorectal cancers described by gastroenterologists in colonoscopies and the actual anatomical location noted on operative and pathology reports after colon surgery. PATIENTS AND
methodsA single-center retrospective analysis of colonoscopies of patient with reported colonic masses from January 2005 to April 2014 (n = 380) was carried. Assessed data included demography, operative and pathology reports. Findings were compared: between the location of colorectal cancers described by gastroenterologists in colonoscopies and the actual anatomical location noted on operative reports or pathology samples.
resultsWe identified 380 colonic masses, 158 were confirmed adenocarcinomas. Of these 123 underwent surgical resection, 27 had to be excluded since no specific location was reported on their operative or pathology report. An absolute difference between endoscopic and surgical location was found in 32 cases (33 %). Of these, 22 (23 %) differed by 1 colonic segment, 8 (8 %) differed by 2 colonic segments and 2 (2 %) differed by 3 colonic segments.
conclusionThere is a significant difference between the location of colorectal cancers reported by gastroenterologists during endoscopy and the actual anatomical location noted on operative or pathology reports after colon surgery. Endoscopic tattooing should be used when faced with any luminal lesions of interest.
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.