Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31543685›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2019

Prognostic value of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen/tumor size in rectal cancer.

Du Cai, Zeng-Hong Huang, Hui-Chuan Yu, Xiao-Lin Wang, Liang-Liang Bai, Guan-Nan Tang, Shao-Yong Peng, Ying-Jie Li, Mei-Jin Huang, Guang-Wen Cao and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Risk Factors for Distant Metastasis in T3 T4 Rectal Cancer.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Du CaiGuangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease (Supported by National Key Clinical Discipline), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Zeng-Hong HuangGuangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease (Supported by National Key Clinical Discipline), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Hui-Chuan YuGuangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease (Supported by National Key Clinical Discipline), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Xiao-Lin WangGuangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease (Supported by National Key Clinical Discipline), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Liang-Liang BaiGuangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease (Supported by National Key Clinical Discipline), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Guan-Nan TangGuangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease (Supported by National Key Clinical Discipline), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Shao-Yong PengGuangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease (Supported by National Key Clinical Discipline), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Ying-Jie LiGuangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease (Supported by National Key Clinical Discipline), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Mei-Jin HuangDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Guang-Wen CaoDepartment of Epidemiology, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China.
Jian-Ping WangGuangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease (Supported by National Key Clinical Discipline), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Yan-Xin LuoGuangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease (Supported by National Key Clinical Discipline), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China.
Second Military Medical University · CNSixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCarcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a commonly used biomarker in colorectal cancer. However, controversy exists regarding the insufficient prognostic value of preoperative serum CEA alone in rectal cancer. Here, we combined preoperative serum CEA and the maximum tumor diameter to correct the CEA level, which may better reflect the malignancy of rectal cancer.

aimTo assess the prognostic impact of preoperative CEA/tumor size in rectal cancer.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 696 stage I to III rectal cancer patients who underwent curative tumor resection from 2007 to 2012. These patients were randomly divided into two cohorts for cross-validation: training cohort and validation cohort. The training cohort was used to generate an optimal cutoff point and the validation cohort was used to further validate the model. Maximally selected rank statistics were used to identify the optimum cutoff for CEA/tumor size. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to plot the survival curve and to compare the survival data. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to determine the prognostic value of CEA/tumor size. The primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), respectively.

resultsIn all, 556 patients who satisfied both the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included and randomly divided into the training cohort (2/3 of 556,

conclusionPreoperative CEA/tumor size is an independent prognostic factor for patients with stage I-III rectal cancer. Higher CEA/tumor size is associated with worse OS and DFS.

Indexed as

ProctectomyTumor BurdenAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoembryonic AntigenDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPreoperative PeriodPrognosisCarcinoembryonic AntigenCarcinoembryonic antigenCarcinoembryonic antigen/tumor sizePrognosisRectal cancerSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID31543685
PMCPMC6737319
OpenAlexW2971625416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.