Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31207005›Full record

ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2019

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal lesions in a specialist regional early rectal cancer centre: the Mersey experience.

M Ondhia, P Tamvakeras, P O'Toole, A Montazerri, T Andrews, C Farrell, S Ahmed, S Slawik, S Ahmed, Merseyside Early Rectal Cancer Network

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M OndhiaRoyal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9049-0338
P TamvakerasAintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
P O'TooleRoyal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
A MontazerriClatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Wirral, UK.
T AndrewsRoyal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
C FarrellRoyal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
S AhmedAintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
S SlawikAintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
S AhmedRoyal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Merseyside Early Rectal Cancer Network
University of Liverpool · GBRoyal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust · GBClatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimOrgan-preserving local excision by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for early rectal cancer offers significantly lower morbidity as compared to formal rectal cancer resection with acceptable outcomes. This study presents our 6-year experience of TEM for rectal lesions referred to a specialist early rectal cancer centre in the UK.

methodData were collected for all patients referred for TEM of suspected early rectal cancer to a regional specialist early rectal cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) over a 6-year period.

resultsOne hundred and forty-one patients who underwent full-thickness TEM for suspected or confirmed early rectal cancer were included. Thirty patients were referred for TEM following incomplete endoscopic polypectomy. Final pathology was benign in 77 (54.6%) cases and malignant in 64 (45.4%). Of the 61 confirmed adenocarcinomas, TEM resections were pT0 in 17 (27.9%), pT1 in 32 (51.7%), pT2 in 11 (18.0%) and pT3 in 1 (1.6%). Thirty-eight of 61 patients (62.3%) had one or more poor histological prognostic features and these patients were offered further treatment. Twenty-three of 61 (37.7%) patients with rectal adenocarcinoma required no further treatment following TEM. Forty-three cases of rectal adenocarcinoma were available for establishing recurrence rates. Two of 43 patients (4.7%) developed a recurrence at a median follow-up of 28.7 months (12.1-66.5 months). The overall estimated 5-year overall survival rate was 87.9% and the disease-free survival rate was 82.9%.

conclusionAcceptable outcomes are possible for TEM surgery with appropriate patient selection, effective technique, expert histopathology, appropriate referral for adjuvant treatment and meticulous follow-up. This can be achieved through an early rectal cancer MDT in a dedicated specialist regional centre.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Care TeamPatient SelectionProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationRegional Medical ProgramsSpecialties, SurgicalTransanal Endoscopic MicrosurgeryTreatment OutcomeEarly rectal cancerlocal excision rectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID31207005
PMCPMC6900238
OpenAlexW2951448630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.