Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31696599›Full record

ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2020

International evaluation of circumferential resection margins after rectal cancer resection: insights from the Swedish and Dutch audits.

R Detering, D Saraste, M P M de Neree Tot Babberich, J W T Dekker, M W J M Wouters, A A W van Geloven, W A Bemelman, P J Tanis, A Martling, M Westerterp and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
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

11 authors.

R DeteringDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2412-7116
D SarasteDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet,, Stockholm, Sweden.
M P M de Neree Tot BabberichScientific bureau of the Dutch Institute of Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands.
J W T DekkerDepartment of Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Hospital,, Delft, The Netherlands.
M W J M WoutersScientific bureau of the Dutch Institute of Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands.
A A W van GelovenDepartment of Surgery, Tergooi Hospital,, Hilversum, The Netherlands.
W A BemelmanDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P J TanisDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A MartlingDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet,, Stockholm, Sweden.
M WesterterpDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study aimed to determine predictive factors for the circumferential resection margin (CRM) within two northern European countries with supposed similarity in providing rectal cancer care.

methodData for all patients undergoing rectal resection for clinical tumour node metastasis (TNM) stage I-III rectal cancer were extracted from the Swedish ColoRectal Cancer Registry and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit (2011-2015). Separate analyses were performed for cT1-3 and cT4 stage. Predictive factors for the CRM were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

resultsA total of 6444 Swedish and 12 089 Dutch patients were analysed. Over time the number of hospitals treating rectal cancer decreased from 52 to 42 in Sweden, and 82 to 79 in the Netherlands. In the Swedish population, proportions of cT4 stage (17% vs 8%), multivisceral resection (14% vs 7%) and abdominoperineal excision (APR) (37% vs 31%) were higher. The overall proportion of patients with a positive CRM (CRM+) was 7.8% in Sweden and 5.4% in the Netherlands. In both populations with cT1-3 stage disease, common independent risk factors for CRM+ were cT3, APR and multivisceral resection. No common risk factors for CRM+ in cT4 stage disease were found. An independent impact of hospital volume on CRM+ could be demonstrated for the cT1-3 Dutch population.

conclusionWithin two northern European countries with implemented clinical auditing, rectal cancer care might potentially be improved by further optimizing the treatment of distal and locally advanced rectal cancer.

Indexed as

ProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsHumansMargins of ExcisionNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesSwedenTreatment Outcomecolorectal surgeryhospitalsNetherlandsRectal neoplasmssurgical marginSweden

Identifiers

PMID31696599
PMCPMC7187294

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.