Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31675950›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2019

Tumor budding outperforms ypT and ypN classification in predicting outcome of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Iryna Trotsyuk, Halina Sparschuh, Alice Josephine Müller, Konrad Neumann, Martin Kruschewski, David Horst, Sefer Elezkurtaj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The impact of preoperative treatments on the immune environment of rectal cancer.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Iryna TrotsyukInstitut für Pathologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Halina SparschuhInstitut für Pathologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Alice Josephine MüllerInstitut für Pathologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Konrad NeumannInstitut für Biometrie und Klinische Epidemiologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Martin KruschewskiKlinik für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie Klinikum, Müllroser Chaussee 7, 15236, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany.
David HorstInstitut für Pathologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Sefer ElezkurtajInstitut für Pathologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. sefer.elezkurtaj@charite.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBudding is a complementary prognostic factor for colorectal cancer. In this study, we aimed to clarify the role of tumor budding in rectal cancer patients after preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

methodsA total of 124 patients with rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and consecutive surgery were included. Surgical specimens were evaluated for budding and routine clinicopathological features. Budding was evaluated on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides and by cytokeratin immunohistochemical (IHC) staining.

resultsA budding rate of 36.9% (n = 38) by H&E and 55.6% (n = 55) by IHC was observed. Budding was significantly associated with a high ypT and ypN status, poor differentiation, and low degrees of tumor regression. Moreover, budding was strongly predictive of a worse patient outcome, as measured by tumor recurrence or death. In multivariate analyses, budding remained the only significant parameter for overall survival and was even superior to the ypT and ypN status (budding in H&E: hazard ratio (HR) 2.72, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15-6.44, p = 0.023; budding in IHC: HR 5.19, 95% CI 1.62-16.61, p = 0.006).

conclusionBudding is a strong prognostic predictor of survival in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy. A standardized evaluation of tumor budding after neoadjuvant therapy may thus aid in risk stratification and guide the clinical management of patients with rectal cancer. Immunostaining can help to enhance the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic significance.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCell ProliferationChemoradiotherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRectal NeoplasmsRectumSurvival AnalysisNeoadjuvant therapyPrognostic factorRectal cancerTumor budding

Identifiers

PMID31675950
PMCPMC6824112

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.