ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2020
Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Posttreatment Strategy After Endoscopic Resection for Patients with T1 Colorectal Cancer at High Risk of Lymph Node Metastasis.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic resection versus surgery for T1 rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of oncologic and safety outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- The Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Committee Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Guideline
- Long-term outcomes of additional surgery versus surveillance-only clinical decision for early colorectal cancer patients after non-curative endoscopic resection: a meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Pooled it
- Surgical resection after endoscopic resection in patients with T1 colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled it
- Histopronostic factors in superficial colorectal adenocarcinomas treated by endoscopy: reproducibility and impact of immunohistochemistry and digital pathology.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024Article
- Long-term outcomes after endoscopic removal of malignant colorectal polyps: Results from a 10-year cohort.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- [Prognosis Analysis of Additional Surgical Treatment for High-Risk T1 Colorectal Cancer Patients After Endoscopic Resection].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2024Article
- Risk factors of lymph node metastasis in patients with T1 stage colorectal cancer-a retrospective cohort study based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Nonsurgical Management Following Local Resection for Early Rectal Cancer in Patients with High-risk Factors: A Single-institute Experience.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2020Article
- Survival analysis of local excision vs total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer in pT1/pT2 stage and intermediate pathological risk.World journal of surgical oncology · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough endoscopic resection is increasingly performed to treat submucosal invasive colorectal cancer (T1CRC), approximately 10% are at risk of lymph node metastasis. The Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guideline indicates that the following risk factors should be considered when deciding whether to perform additional surgical resection with lymph node dissection: depth of T1 invasion, lymphovascular invasion, poor histological grade, and budding grade 2/3. However, there is little information about the prognosis of T1CRC patients, or factors to consider when deciding subsequent treatment of high-risk T1CRC.
methodsThis retrospective mixed method study was conducted using electronic medical records at Kyoto University Hospital between February 2005 and February 2015. Participants were T1CRC patients at risk of lymph node metastasis with at least one of the above four risk factors. They were assigned either careful follow-up (FU) or additional surgery (AS) through shared decision-making. To identify factors affecting decision-making in the FU group, we performed qualitative content analysis of electronic medical records. The prognosis of the groups was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test.
resultsOf 161 T1CRC patients, 18 were included in the FU group and 19 in the AS group. The median follow-up time was 39.5 (range 23-126) months for the FU group and 62 (range 22-141) months for the AS group. Factors considered in selecting FU were advanced age, comorbidities, the sole presence of the "depth" risk factor, and lower rectal cancer. For AS, the risk factors cited in the guideline were considered. There was one recurrent case in each group during the research period. There were no significant differences in overall survival, cause-specific survival, or recurrence-free survival between the groups.
conclusionsAge, comorbidities, and lower-rectal cancer location were considered in deciding posttreatment strategy among high-risk T1CRC patients, alongside with positive vertical margin, depth, lymphovascular invasion, poor histologic grade, and budding. During the research period, there was no prognostic difference between the FU and AS groups.
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.