Observational studySurgical endoscopy2018
Endorectal ultrasound in the identification of rectal tumors for transanal endoscopic surgery: factors influencing its accuracy.
Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety Between da Vinci Robotic and Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Chemoradiotherapy and transanal endoscopic surgery versus transanal endoscopic surgery alone in T1N0M0 rectal cancer: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase III clinical trial (TAUTEM-T1 study).International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Trial
- Long-term outcomes of pT1 rectal cancer after transanal endoscopic surgery: again, a word of caution on high local recurrence - a cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Observational
- How to Study the Location and Size of Rectal Tumors That Are Candidates for Local Surgery: Rigid Rectoscopy, Magnetic Resonance, Endorectal Ultrasound or Colonoscopy? An Interobservational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Magnifying chromoendoscopy is a reliable method in the selection of rectal neoplasms for local excision.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Prediction of lymph node metastasis in stage T1-2 rectal cancers with MRI-based deep learning.European radiology · 2023Article
- Transanal endoscopic microsurgery after the attempt of endoscopic removal of rectal polyps.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Transanal Local Excision or Endoscopic Dissection for Benign and Large Lesions of the Rectum.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging-guided and targeted theranostics of colorectal cancer.Cancer biology & medicine · 2020Review
- Importance of Resection Margins in the Treatment of Rectal Adenomas by Transanal Endoscopic Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
- Transanal endoscopic microsurgery in very large and ultra large rectal neoplasia.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) is considered the technique of choice for selecting patients for transanal endoscopic surgery (TEM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of ERUS in patients with rectal tumors who later underwent TEM, and to analyze the factors that influence this accuracy. Observational study including prospective data collection of patients with rectal tumors undergoing TEM with curative intent between June 2004 and May 2016. Preoperative staging by EUS (uT) was correlated with the pathology results after TEM (pT). The accuracy of the EUS was evaluated and a series of variables (tumor morphology, height, lesion size, quadrant, definitive pathology, the surgeon assessing the ERUS, and waiting time from the date of the ERUS until surgery) were analyzed as possible predictors of diagnostic accuracy. Six hundred and fifty-one patients underwent TEM, of whom 495 met the inclusion criteria. The overall accuracy of EUS was 78%, sensitivity 83.78%, specificity 20%, PPV 91.3%, and NPV 11%. Forty patients (8.08%) were understaged and 50 (10.9%) were overstaged. In the multivariate analysis, the surgeon's experience emerged as the most important predictor of accuracy (p < 0.001; OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.681-4.512). The EUS was less accurate with larger lesions (p = 0.004; OR 0.219, 95% CI 0.137-0.349) and when the definitive diagnosis was adenocarcinoma (p < 0.001; OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.746-0.946). ERUS accuracy rates are variable and there is a possibility of understaging and overstaging that must be taken into consideration. This accuracy is dependent on the operator's experience as well on lesion size; in addition, it is lower for lesions shown to be cancers in the final pathology report.
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.