Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32013990›Full record

Observational studyBMC surgery2020

An observational study of patho-oncological outcomes of various surgical methods in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single center analysis.

Yi-Ting Chen, Ching-Wen Huang, Cheng-Jen Ma, Hsiang-Lin Tsai, Yung-Sung Yeh, Wei-Chih Su, Chee-Yin Chai, Jaw-Yuan Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yi-Ting ChenDepartment of Pathology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0817-1539
Ching-Wen HuangDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, No. 100 Tzyou 1st Road, Kaohsiung, 807, Taiwan.
Cheng-Jen MaDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, No. 100 Tzyou 1st Road, Kaohsiung, 807, Taiwan.
Hsiang-Lin TsaiDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, No. 100 Tzyou 1st Road, Kaohsiung, 807, Taiwan.
Yung-Sung YehDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, No. 100 Tzyou 1st Road, Kaohsiung, 807, Taiwan.
Wei-Chih SuDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, No. 100 Tzyou 1st Road, Kaohsiung, 807, Taiwan.
Chee-Yin ChaiDepartment of Pathology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Jaw-Yuan WangGraduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. cy614112@ms14.hinet.net.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7705-2621
Kaohsiung Medical University · TWNational Sun Yat-sen University · TW

Funding

Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital KMUH107-7M23Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital KMUH107-7R28Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital KMUH107-7R30Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital KMUHS10801Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital KMUHS10807Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital (TW) KMUH107-7M22Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital (TW) KMUH107-7R29Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital (TW) KMUH107-7R87Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital (TW) KMUHS10701Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital (TW) KMUHS10804Kaohsiung Medical University (TW) KMU-Q108003Kaohsiung Medical University (TW) KMU-TC108A04Ministry of Health and Welfare MOHW107-TDU-B-212-114026BMinistry of Health and Welfare MOHW108-TDU-B-212-124026Ministry of Health and Welfare (TW) MOHW107-TDU-B-212-123006Ministry of Health and Welfare (TW) MOHW108-TDU-B-212-133006Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan MOST107-2314-B-037-022-MY2Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan MOST107-2320-B-037-018Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan MOST107-2321-B-037-003Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (TW) MOST107-2314-B-037-023-MY2Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (TW) MOST107-2314-B-037-116Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (TW) MOST108-2321-B-037-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTotal mesorectal excision (TME) with or without neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the treatment for rectal cancer (RC). Recently, the use of conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic-assisted surgery (RS) has been on a steady increase cases. However, various oncological outcomes from different surgical approaches are still under investigation.

methodsThis is a retrospective observational study comprising 300 consecutive RC patients who underwent various techniques of TME (RS, n = 88; LS, n = 37; Open surgery, n = 175) at a single center of real world data to compare the pathological and oncological outcomes, with a median follow-up of 48 months.

resultsUpon multivariate analysis, histologic grade (P = 0.016), and stage (P < 0.001) were the independent factors of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis determined RS, early pathologic stage, negative CRM involvement, and pathologic complete response to be significantly associated with better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (all P < 0.05). Multivariable analyses observed the surgical method (P = 0.037), histologic grade (P = 0.006), and CRM involvement (P = 0.043) were the independent factors of DFS, whereas histologic grade (P = 0.011) and pathologic stage (P = 0.022) were the independent prognostic variables of OS.

conclusionsThis study determined that RS TME is feasible because it has less CRM involvement and better oncological outcomes than the alternatives have. The significant factors influencing CRM and prognosis depended on the histologic grade, tumor depth, and pre-operative CCRT. RS might be an acceptable option owing to the favorable oncological outcomes for patients with RC undergoing TME.

Indexed as

AgedChemoradiotherapyDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLaparoscopyMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyPrognosisRectal NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopicOpen surgeryRectal cancerRoboticTotal mesorectal excision

Identifiers

PMID32013990
PMCPMC6998335
OpenAlexW3008108565

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.