Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33844111›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2021

Comparison of prognostic impact between positive intraoperative peritoneal and lavage cytologies in colorectal cancer.

Kentaro Sato, Ken Imaizumi, Hiroyuki Kasajima, Michihiro Kurushima, Minoru Umehara, Yosuke Tsuruga, Daisuke Yamana, Keisuke Obuchi, Aya Sato, Kazuaki Nakanishi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2021. 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
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kentaro Sato *Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, 1-10-1 Minatocho, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8680, Japan.
Ken Imaizumi *Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, 1-10-1 Minatocho, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8680, Japan. imaken1983@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7751-6270
Hiroyuki KasajimaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, 1-10-1 Minatocho, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8680, Japan.
Michihiro KurushimaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, 1-10-1 Minatocho, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8680, Japan.
Minoru UmeharaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, 1-10-1 Minatocho, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8680, Japan.
Yosuke TsurugaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, 1-10-1 Minatocho, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8680, Japan.
Daisuke YamanaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, 1-10-1 Minatocho, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8680, Japan.
Keisuke ObuchiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, 1-10-1 Minatocho, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8680, Japan.
Aya SatoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, 1-10-1 Minatocho, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8680, Japan.
Kazuaki NakanishiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hakodate Municipal Hospital, 1-10-1 Minatocho, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8680, Japan.
Hakodate National Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prognostic value of positive intraoperative peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology, including the differences in their prognostic impact, in colorectal cancer is controversial. We aimed to investigate the prognostic values of positive peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology findings for colorectal cancer and compare their prognostic impact.

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 592 clinical stage II-IV colorectal cancer patients who underwent peritoneal cytology (n = 225) or lavage cytology (n = 367) between November 1993 and December 2018. The prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival were identified, and the differences in cancer-specific survival were examined between the patients.

resultsThe cytology-positive rate was 10.8% (64/592), 17.8% (40/225), and 6.5% (24/367) in the overall, peritoneal cytology, and lavage cytology groups, respectively. Both positive peritoneal cytology (hazard ratio: 2.196) and lavage cytology (hazard ratio: 2.319) were independent prognostic factors. The peritoneal cytology-positive group showed significantly poorer cancer-specific survival than the cytology-negative group (5-year: 3.5% vs. 59.5%; 10-year: 3.5% vs. 46.1%, p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for lavage cytology (5-year: 14.1% vs. 73.9%; 10-year: 4.7% vs. 63.5%, p < 0.001). The cancer-specific survival was not significantly different between the peritoneal cytology-positive and lavage cytology-positive groups (p = 0.058). Both positive peritoneal and lavage cytology were associated with poorer cancer-specific survival across all colorectal cancer stages.

conclusionsPositive peritoneal and lavage cytology are associated with worse cancer-specific survival in colorectal cancer. The prognostic impact was comparable between positive lavage and peritoneal cytology. Thus, cytology should be a standard assessment modality for colorectal cancer.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsPeritoneal LavageCytodiagnosisHumansNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective StudiesColorectal cancerLavage cytologyPeritoneal cytologyPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID33844111
OpenAlexW3152882487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.