ArticleCancer medicine2018
Squamous cell carcinoma of the rectum: Practice trends and patient survival.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of metastatic rectal squamous cell carcinoma in a pregnant patient.BMJ case reports · 2024Article
- PHLPP2: A Prognostic Biomarker in Adenocarcinoma of the Rectum.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Patterns of Care and Outcomes of Low-Lying Adenocarcinoma and Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Rectum.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2022Article
- Modified DCF (Docetaxel, Cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy is effective for the treatment of advanced rectal squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Case Report: Management of rectal squamous cell carcinoma - a treatment dilemma.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Squamous cell carcinoma of the rectum: Practice trends and patient survival.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLeverage the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to evaluate trends in management of nonmetastatic squamous cell cancer (SCC) of the rectum and their effect on survival for this uncommon tumor. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Retrospective data was obtained from the NCDB for patients diagnosed with SCC of the rectum between 2004 and 2014, including cT1-4, cN0-2, cM0 tumors (cohort A, n = 2296). A subgroup analysis was performed on locally advanced tumors (cT1-T2, N+ or cT3, N any, subcohort B, n = 883), treated with chemoradiation (n = 706) or trimodality therapy (n = 177) including chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Pathological complete response rate following neoadjuvant therapy was obtained. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to generate hazard ratios (HR) investigating factors associated with overall survival. Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method was used to estimate overall surviving proportion at 5 and 10 years.
resultsThe K-M estimated 5 and 10 year overall survival for stage I disease was 71.3% and 57.8%, respectively; stage II disease was 57.0% and 38.9%, respectively; stage III disease was 57.8% and 41.5%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, higher cT category (P < 0.001) resulted in worse survival. For locally advanced tumors (subcohort B), there was no significant difference in survival between chemoradiation alone compared to trimodality therapy (P = 0.909 on multivariate analysis).
conclusionsMost providers manage locally advanced SCC of the rectum similar to anal cancer, which results in equivalent overall survival and spares patients from the additional morbidity associated with surgical resection.
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.