ArticleBJS open2018
Impact of incremental circumferential resection margin distance on overall survival and recurrence in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Article in BJS open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of the influence of a positive circumferential resection margin in oesophageal cancer.BJS open · 2019Pooled it
- Machine learning to predict early recurrence after oesophageal cancer surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2020Article
- The Circumferential Resection Margin Is a Prognostic Predictor in Colon Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2020Article
- Article
- Lost in translation: confusion on resection and dissection planes hampers the interpretation of pathology reports for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious analyses of the oesophageal circumferential resection margin (CRM) have focused on the prognostic validity of two different definitions of a positive CRM, that of the College of American Pathologists (tumour at margin) and that of the Royal College of Pathologists (tumour within 1 mm). This study aimed to analyse the validity of these definitions and explore the risk of recurrence and survival with incremental tumour distances from the CRM.
methodsThis cohort study included patients who underwent resection for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus between 2000 and 2014. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed to determine the hazard ratio (HR) with 95 per cent confidence intervals for recurrence and mortality in CRM increments: tumour at the cut margin, extending to within 0·1-0·9, 1·0-1·9, 2·0-4·9 mm, and 5·0 mm or more from the margin.
resultsA total of 444 patients were included in the study. Kaplan-Meier and unadjusted analyses showed a significant incremental improvement in overall survival (P < 0·001) and recurrence (P for trend < 0·001) rates with increasing distance from the CRM. Tumour distance of 2·0 mm or more remained a significant predictor of survival on multivariable analysis (HR for risk of death 0·66, 95 per cent c.i. 0·44 to 1·00). Multivariable analysis of overall survival demonstrated a significant difference between a positive and negative CRM with the Royal College of Pathologists' definition (HR 1·37, 1·01 to 1·85), but not with the College of American Pathologists' definition (HR 1·22, 0·90 to 1·65).
conclusionThis study demonstrated an incremental improvement in survival and recurrence rates with increasing tumour distance from the CRM.
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.