Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33813606›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2021

Disease recurrence after colorectal cancer surgery in the modern era: a population-based study.

Seyed M Qaderi, Boris Galjart, Cornelis Verhoef, Gerrit D Slooter, Miriam Koopman, Robert H A Verhoeven, Johannes H W de Wilt, Felice N van Erning

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Seyed M QaderiDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. seyed.qaderi@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7595-7833
Boris GaljartDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Cornelis VerhoefDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gerrit D SlooterDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Máxima Medical Center, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Miriam KoopmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Robert H A VerhoevenDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Johannes H W de WiltDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Felice N van ErningDepartment of Research & Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis population-based study determined the cumulative incidence (CI) of local, regional, and distant recurrences, examined metastatic patterns, and identified risk factors for recurrence after curative treatment for CRC.

methodsAll patients undergoing resection for pathological stage I-III CRC between January 2015 and July 2015 and registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry were selected (N = 5412). Additional patient record review and data collection on recurrences was conducted by trained administrators in 2019. Three-year CI of recurrence was calculated according to sublocation (right-sided: RCC, left-sided: LCC and rectal cancer: RC) and stage. Cox competing risk regression analyses were used to identify risk factors for recurrence.

resultsThe 3-year CI of recurrence for stage I, II, and III RCC and LCC was 0.03 vs. 0.03, 0.12 vs. 0.16, and 0.31 vs. 0.24, respectively. The 3-year CI of recurrence for stage I, II, and III RC was 0.08, 0.24, and 0.38. Distant metastases were found in 14, 12, and 16% of patients with RCC, LCC, and RC. Multiple site metastases were found often in patients with RCC, LCC, and RC (42 vs. 32 vs. 28%). Risk factors for recurrence in stage I-II CRC were age 65-74 years, pT4 tumor size, and poor tumor differentiation whereas in stage III CRC, these were ASA III, pT4 tumor size, N2, and poor tumor differentiation.

conclusionsRecurrence rates in recently treated patients with CRC were lower than reported in the literature and the metastatic pattern and recurrence risks varied between anatomical sublocations.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsRectal NeoplasmsAgedHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective StudiesColorectal neoplasmDistant metastasisFollow-up studiesLocoregionalRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID33813606
PMCPMC8505312
OpenAlexW3147546722

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.