Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33643920›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2020

Which Definition of Upper Rectal Cancer Is Optimal in Selecting Stage II or III Rectal Cancer Patients to Avoid Postoperative Adjuvant Radiation?

Xian Hua Gao, Bai Zhi Zhai, Juan Li, Jean Luc Tshibangu Kabemba, Hai Feng Gong, Chen Guang Bai, Ming Lu Liu, Shao Ting Zhang, Fu Shen, Lian Jie Liu and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A comprehensive insights of cancer immunotherapy resistance.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Xian Hua GaoDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Bai Zhi ZhaiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Juan LiDepartment of Nephrology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Jean Luc Tshibangu KabembaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Hai Feng GongDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Chen Guang BaiDepartment of Pathology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Ming Lu LiuDepartment of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Shao Ting ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Fu ShenDepartment of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Lian Jie LiuDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Changhai Hospital · CNSecond Military Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn most guidelines, upper rectal cancers (URC) are not recommended to take neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation. However, the definitions of URC vary greatly. Five definitions had been commonly used to define URC: 1) >10 cm from the anal verge by MRI; 2) >12 cm from the anal verge by MRI; 3) >10 cm from the anal verge by colonoscopy; 4) >12 cm from the anal verge by colonoscopy; 5) above the anterior peritoneal reflection (APR). We hypothesized that the fifth definition is optimal to identify patients with rectal cancer to avoid adjuvant radiation.

methodsThe data of stage II/III rectal cancer patients who underwent radical surgery without preoperative chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. The height of the APR was measured, and compared with the tumor height measured by digital rectal examination (DRE), MRI and colonoscopy. The five definitions were compared in terms of prediction of local recurrence, survival, and percentages of patients requiring radiation.

resultsA total of 576 patients were included, with the intraoperative location of 222 and 354 tumors being above and straddle/below the APR, respectively. The median distance of the APR from anal verge (height of APR) as measured by MRI was 8.7 (range: 4.5-14.3) cm. The height of APR positively correlated with body height (r=0.862, P<0.001). The accuracy of the MRI in determining the tumor location with respect to the APR was 92.1%. Rectal cancer above the APR had a significantly lower incidence of local recurrence than those straddle/below the APR (P=0.042). For those above the APR, there was no significant difference in local recurrence between the radiation and no-radiation group. Multivariate analyses showed that tumor location regarding APR was an independent risk factor for LRFS. Tumor height as measured by DRE, MRI and colonoscopy were not related with survival outcomes. Fewer rectal cancer patients required adjuvant radiation using the definition by the APR, compared with other four definitions based on a numerical tumor height measured by MRI and colonoscopy.

conclusionsThe definition of URC as rectal tumor above the APR, might be the optimal definition to select patients with stage II/III rectal cancer to avoid postoperative adjuvant radiation.

Indexed as

anterior peritoneal reflectionintraoperative findingMRIradiotherapyupper rectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID33643920
PMCPMC7907590
OpenAlexW3132496019

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.