ArticleANZ journal of surgery2022
Regional variance in treatment and outcomes of locally invasive (T4) rectal cancer in Australia and New Zealand: analysis of the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Minimally invasive surgery for maximally invasive tumors-pelvic exenterations for rectal cancers: are we prepared?Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsLocally invasive T4 rectal cancer often requires neoadjuvant treatment followed by multi-visceral surgery to achieve a radical resection (R0), and referral to a specialized exenteration quaternary centre is typically recommended. The aim of this study was to explore regional variance in treatment and outcomes of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ).
methodsData were collected from the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) database. Rectal cancer patients treated between 2007 and 2019 were divided into six groups based on region (state/country) using patient postcode. A subset analysis of patients with T4 cancer was performed. Primary outcomes were positive circumferential resection margin (CRM+), and positive circumferential and/or distal resection margin (CRM/DRM+).
resultsA total of 9385 patients with rectal cancer were identified, with an overall CRM+ rate of 6.4% and CRM/DRM+ rate of 8.6%. There were 1350 patients with T4 rectal cancer (14.4%). For these patients, CRM+ rate was 18.5%, and CRM/DRM+ rate was 24.1%. Significant regional variation in CRM+ (range 13.4-26.0%; p = 0.025) and CRM/DRM+ rates (range 16.1-29.3%; p = 0.005) was identified. In addition, regions with higher CRM+ and CRM/DRM+ rates reported lower rates of multi-visceral resections: range 24.3-26.8%, versus 32.6-37.3% for regions with lower CRM+ and CRM/DRM+ rates (p < 0.0001).
conclusionPositive resection margins and rates of multi-visceral resection vary between the different regions of ANZ. A small subset of patients with T4 rectal cancer are particularly at risk, further supporting the concept of referral to specialized exenteration centres for potentially curative multi-visceral resection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.