ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2018
Histopathological Analysis of 173 Consecutive Patients with Colorectal Carcinoma: A Pathologist's View.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2018. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging of 103 Patients with Rectal Adenocarcinoma Identifies the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient as an Imaging Marker for Tumor Invasion and Regional Lymph Node Involvement.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021Article
- A review on management of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Worldwide, colorectal carcinomas are the third most common carcinomas in men and the second most common carcinomas in women. Pathological examination of rectum specimens requires special attention for correctly evaluating many prognostically important factors. In this study, we present pathological results of 173 lower anterior resection (LAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR) specimens retrospectively evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS We included 173 LAR and APR specimens in this study. Patients were evaluated in the Istanbul Ekin Private Pathology Laboratory and underwent surgery at Çanakkale State Hospital, General Surgery Clinic. RESULTS Of the 173 specimens, 15 (8.7%) were APR and 158 (91.3%) were LAR specimens. Ninety-four patients (54.3%) were males and 79 patients (45.7%) were females. The mean age of the patients was 63.5 years (range 26-90 years). In the histopathological examination, malignant neoplasm was detected in 172 of the cases (99.4%) and benign endometriosis was detected in 1 of the cases (0.6%). There were 151 (87.2%), 8 (4.6%), 5 (2.9%), 1 (0.6%), 1 (0.6%), 1 (0.6%), 1 (0.6%), 1 (0.6%), and 4 (2.3%) patients with adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, intramucosal adenocarcinoma in the setting of a high-grade tubulovillous adenoma, synchronous colon/prostate adenocarcinoma, malignant melanoma, signet ring cell carcinoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, endometriosis, and adenocarcinoma diagnosed by the examination of colonoscopic biopsy specimens that showed complete regression with neoadjuvant therapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS When evaluating specimens from patients with colorectal carcinoma, pathological evaluation, which is one of the most fundamental pillars in managing patients with cancer, must be performed carefully and meticulously. Each pathological parameter should be evaluated carefully and clinicians and pathologists should evaluate these cases together.
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.