Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29203975›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of surgical oncology2017

A Prospective Study of Distal Microscopic Spread in Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Pinned and Unpinned Specimen.

Aravind S Kapali, K Chandramohan, A V Jayasudha

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of surgical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04927897 (DETECT), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04927897 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

DETECT: Defining the Target Volume for Endoluminal Radiation Boosting in Patients With Rectal Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorMaastricht Radiation OncologyRan2022 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsRectal CancerArmsUltrasound, Rectoscopy, Scan, e.g. CT (resection specimen)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Microscopic intramural extension of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: A meta-analysis based on individual patient data.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. 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

3 authors.

Aravind S KapaliDepartment of Surgical Oncology, M S Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka India.
K ChandramohanDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala India.
A V JayasudhaDepartment of Pathology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The most important margin in determining the prognosis of rectal cancer is circumferential resection margin (CRM). But, the type of surgery is determined by distal rectal margin (DRM), whether sphincter saving procedure is possible or patient needs an abdominoperineal resection. There are no standardized uniform guidelines for measurement of DRM. The purpose of this study is to assess the distal microscopic spread beyond gross margin after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) in rectal cancers, the factors influencing the distal microscopic spread, the shrinkage of the distal margin in pinned and unpinned fresh and fixed specimen, and to find out the best method of measurement of distal rectal margin. A prospective analytical study was conducted from May 2013 through February 2015 in 47 cases of carcinoma rectum (both AR and APR) who had received neoadjuvant CCRT. Fresh specimen was collected within 30 min of specimen retrieval and a longitudinal cut was made in the distal margin of all specimens. One side of the specimen was pinned onto a cork board and the other side was left unpinned. Measurements were made from the distal end of clinical gross tumor. DRM was determined in both pinned and unpinned sides in fresh and fixed specimen. Of the 47 patients, 2 patients (4.2%) had small focus of tumor beyond gross margins, 1 at 6 mm and another at 3.5 mm on the unpinned side. The average margin for fresh and fixed pinned specimens was 3.67 and 3.47 cm, respectively, with percentage shrinkage of 5.4% for the pinned specimens. The average margin for fresh and fixed unpinned specimens was 3.32 and 2.84 cm, respectively, with percentage shrinkage of 14.4% for the unpinned specimens. Six patients (12.7%) had complete pathological response. Correlation of distal margin was better in pinned specimen. A correction factor of 15% for shrinkage needs to be taken into account while assessing unpinned specimen. Only in 4.2% of patients, there was distal submucosal spread beyond gross margin. Long-term follow up is required for assessing adequacy of DRM post neoadjuvant CCRT.

Indexed as

Distal rectal marginFormaline fixationPinned and unpinned specimen

Identifiers

PMID29203975
PMCPMC5705501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.