Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32639566›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Association of Image-Guided Navigation With Complete Resection Rate in Patients With Locally Advanced Primary and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Esther N D Kok, Ruben van Veen, Harald C Groen, Wouter J Heerink, Nikie J Hoetjes, Erik van Werkhoven, Geerard L Beets, Arend G J Aalbers, Koert F D Kuhlmann, Jasper Nijkamp and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Tailored-Surgery for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Based on 3D Mathematical Reconstruction Surgical Planner: Prospective Multicenter Study.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Feasibility of tracked ultrasound registration for pelvic-abdominal tumor navigation: a patient study.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Errors in Figure 3 and Supplement 2.JAMA network open · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Esther N D KokDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ruben van VeenDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Harald C GroenDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Wouter J HeerinkDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Nikie J HoetjesDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Erik van WerkhovenDepartment of Biometrics, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Geerard L BeetsDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Arend G J AalbersDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Koert F D KuhlmannDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jasper NijkampDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Theo J M RuersDepartment of Surgical Oncology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The percentage of tumor-positive surgical resection margin rates in patients treated for locally advanced primary or recurrent rectal cancer is high. Image-guided navigation may improve complete resection rates. Objective: To ascertain whether image-guided navigation during rectal cancer resection improves complete resection rates compared with surgical procedures without navigation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective single-center nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at the Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The prospective or navigation cohort included adult patients with locally advanced primary or recurrent rectal cancer who underwent resection with image-guided navigation between February 1, 2016, and September 30, 2019, at the tertiary referral hospital. Clinical results of this cohort were compared with results of the historical cohort, which was composed of adult patients who received rectal cancer resection without image-guided navigation between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015. Intervention: Rectal cancer resection with image-guided navigation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the complete resection rate, measured by the amount of tumor-negative resection margin rates. Secondary outcomes were safety and usability of the system. Safety was evaluated by the number of navigation system-associated surgical adverse events. Usability was assessed from responses to a questionnaire completed by the participating surgeons after each procedure. Results: In total, 33 patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer were included (23 men [69.7%]; median [interquartile range] age at start of treatment, 61 [55.0-69.0] years). With image-guided navigation, a radical resection (R0) was achieved in 13 of 14 patients (92.9%; 95% CI, 66.1%-99.8%) after primary resection of locally advanced tumors and in 15 of 19 patients (78.9%; 95% CI, 54.4%-94.0%) after resection of recurrent rectal cancer. No navigation system-associated complications occurred before or during surgical procedures. In the historical cohort, 142 patients who underwent resection without image-guided navigation were included (95 men [66.9%]; median [interquartile range] age at start of treatment, 64 [55.0-70.0] years). In these patients, an R0 resection was accomplished in 85 of 101 patients (84.2%) with locally advanced rectal cancer and in 20 of 41 patients (48.8%) with recurrent rectal cancer. A significant difference was found between the navigation and historical cohorts after recurrent rectal cancer resection (21.1% vs 51.2%; P = .047). For locally advanced primary tumor resection, the difference was not significant (7.1% vs 15.8%; P = .69). Surgeons stated in completed questionnaires that the navigation system improved decisiveness and helped with tumor localization. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this study suggest that image-guided navigation used during rectal cancer resection is safe and intuitive and may improve tumor-free resection margin rates in recurrent rectal cancer. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR7184.

Indexed as

DissectionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRectal NeoplasmsRectumSurgery, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNetherlandsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32639566
PMCPMC7344384
OpenAlexW3040723122

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.