ArticleUpdates in surgery2020
Should radical surgery for rectal cancer be offered to elderly population? A propensity-matching analysis on short- and long-term outcomes.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronological age does not predict poor outcomes after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a retrospective study.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Surgery for Older Cancer Patients: Cross-Organ Review and Good Practice Statement by the Japanese Geriatric Oncology Guideline Committee.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Review
- Survival benefit of surgery in elderly patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2024Article
- Current Treatment Approaches and Outcomes in the Management of Rectal Cancer Above the Age of 80.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elderly patients with rectal tumor are often undertreated if compared to younger ones. The reasons for this attitude are not fully clear.The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of radical treatments for rectal cancer in subjects with an age ≥ 75 years (group 1) and to compare short- and long-term outcomes of these patients with patients with an age of less that 75 years (group 2). 311 consecutive patients who underwent radical surgery for rectal cancer were evaluated. A propensity-matching analysis on short- and long-term outcomes was conducted to compare older and younger patients. Overall postoperative complication rate was 23.8% (19/80) in the group 2 and 33.8% (27/80) in group 1 (p = 0.162). OS at 1, 3 and 5 years was 96.2%, 88.4% and 75.9% in under 75 and 92.5%, 64.3% and 50.6% in over 75 group, respectively (p = 0.001). However, TSS was considered, no significant difference was found. Major complications were comparable within groups: 10 (12.5%) versus 11 (13.8%) in groups 2 and 1, respectively (p = 0.633). This study suggests that major rectal cancer surgery with curative intent should not be denied to an elderly population on the basis of age alone. Specific oncologic features and comorbidities are better long-term mortality predictors than aging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.