Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34674491›Full record

ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2018

Guideline versus non-guideline based management of rectal cancer in octogenarians.

A van Vuuren, L Verhoeven, F van den Berkmortel, Y van de Wouw, E Belgers, F J Vogelaar, M L Janssen-Heijnen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European geriatric medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Exploring disparities in adherence to colorectal cancer clinical practice guidelines and associated survival outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A van VuurenDepartment of Internal Medicine-Medical Oncology, Zuyderland MC, Dr. H. Van der Hoffplein 1, Postbus 5500, 6130 MB, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.
L VerhoevenDepartment of Internal Medicine-Medical Oncology, VieCuri Medical Centre, Tegelseweg 210, 5912 BL, Venlo, The Netherlands.
F van den BerkmortelDepartment of Internal Medicine-Medical Oncology, Zuyderland MC, Dr. H. Van der Hoffplein 1, Postbus 5500, 6130 MB, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands. f.vandenberkmortel@zuyderland.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2400-0692
Y van de WouwDepartment of Internal Medicine-Medical Oncology, VieCuri Medical Centre, Tegelseweg 210, 5912 BL, Venlo, The Netherlands.
E BelgersDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zuyderland MC, Postbus 5500, 6130 MB, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.
F J VogelaarDepartment of Surgery, VieCuri Medical Centre, Tegelseweg 210, 5912 BL, Venlo, The Netherlands.
M L Janssen-HeijnenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, VieCuri Medical Centre, Tegelseweg 210, 5912 BL, Venlo, The Netherlands.
VieCuri Medisch Centrum · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe number of octogenarians with rectal adenocarcinoma is growing. Current guidelines seem difficult to apply on octogenarians which may result in non-adherence. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to give insight in occurrence of treatment-related complications, hospitalisations and survival among octogenarians treated according to guidelines versus octogenarians treated otherwise.

methods108 octogenarians with rectal adenocarcinoma were identified by screening of medical records. 22 patients were excluded for treatment process analysis because of stage IV disease or unknown stage. Baseline characteristics, diagnostic process, received treatment, motivation for deviation from guidelines, complications, hospitalisations and date of death were documented. Patients were divided in two groups depending on adherence to treatment guidelines. Differences in baseline characteristics, treatment-related complications and survival between both groups were evaluated.

resultsDiagnosis and treatment according to guidelines occurred in 95 and 54% of the patients, respectively. When documented, patient's preference and comorbidities were major reasons to deviate from guidelines. 66% of patients who were treated according to guidelines experienced complications versus 34% of those treated otherwise (p = 0.02). After adjustment for differences in age and polypharmacy, this association was not significant. Patients treated according to the guideline had better survival 18 months after diagnosis (80 versus 56%, p = 0.02).

conclusionsTreating octogenarians with rectal cancer according to guidelines seem to lead to better overall survival, but may lead to a high risk of complications. This may jeopardise quality of life. More and prospective studies in octogenarians with rectal cancer are needed to customize guidelines for these patients.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaComplicationGuidelineOctogenarianRectumSurvival

Identifiers

PMID34674491
OpenAlexW2805316661

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.