ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2019
Pathologist second opinion significantly alters clinical management of pT1 endoscopically resected colorectal cancer.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Additional staining for lymphovascular invasion is associated with increased estimation of lymph node metastasis in patients with T1 colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2024Pooled it
- Relevance of routine pathology review in cervical carcinoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2020Pooled it
- Interobserver variability of histopathological assessment in pT1 colorectal carcinoma.Histopathology · 2026Article
- Laboratory variation in the grading of dysplasia of duodenal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis patients.Familial cancer · 2023Article
- Long-term oncological outcomes of endoscopic full-thickness resection after previous incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC (LOCAL-study): study protocol of a national prospective cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Diagnostic variability in the histopathological assessment of advanced colorectal adenomas and early colorectal cancer in a screening population.Histopathology · 2022Article
- The histomorphological and molecular landscape of colorectal adenomas and serrated lesions.Pathologica · 2021Review
- High practice variation in risk stratification, baseline oncological staging, and follow-up strategies for T1 colorectal cancers in the Netherlands.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We retrospectively collected a series of 82 endoscopically removed early colorectal cancers. Histological specimens were revised by two gastrointestinal pathologists, performing a re-evaluation of all risk factors for lymph node metastasis. The comparison between second opinion and first pathological report revealed that lymphovascular invasion and tumor grading showed a lower level of concordance than other parameters. Our results demonstrated that second opinion modified risk assessment in about 10% of cases. It was mainly due to a lack in reporting of some parameters at the first diagnosis and a different evaluation in second opinion for updated guidelines. Considering the subgroup of patients with modified risk assessment, clinical data revealed that tumors, re-classified as low risk, did not develop lymph node metastasis that, conversely, occurred in patients identified as high risk by second opinion. In conclusion, second opinion significantly alters risk perception of endoscopically removed early colorectal carcinomas representing a valuable tool for their appropriate clinical management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31209636What 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.