Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31044357›Full record

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.

Yoshitaka Nishikawa, Takahiro Horimatsu, Daisuke Nishizaki, Ayako Kohno, Akira Yokoyama, Masahiro Yoshioka, Koya Hida, Katsuyuki Sakanaka, Sachiko Minamiguchi, Hiroshi Seno and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [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 · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. United European gastroenterology journal · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yoshitaka NishikawaDepartment of Therapeutic Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. ynishikawa-tky@umin.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3313-1990
Takahiro HorimatsuDepartment of Therapeutic Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Daisuke NishizakiDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Ayako KohnoDepartment of Health Informatics, School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Konoe, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan.
Akira YokoyamaDepartment of Therapeutic Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Masahiro YoshiokaDepartment of Therapeutic Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Koya HidaDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Katsuyuki SakanakaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Image-Applied Therapy, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Sachiko MinamiguchiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Hiroshi SenoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Yoshiharu SakaiDepartment of Surgery, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Takeo NakayamaDepartment of Health Informatics, School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Konoe, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan.
Kyoto University · JPKyoto University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgedColorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopyEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsClinical practice guidelineShared decision makingT1 colorectal neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID31044357
OpenAlexW2943272607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.