Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36036328›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2023

Required distal mesorectal resection margin in partial mesorectal excision: a systematic review on distal mesorectal spread.

A A J Grüter, A S van Lieshout, S E van Oostendorp, J C F Ket, M Tenhagen, F C den Boer, R Hompes, P J Tanis, J B Tuynman

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. 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
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

A A J GrüterAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.gruter@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-6073-1003
A S van LieshoutAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2105-1531
S E van OostendorpAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6969-7956
J C F KetMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1909-3150
M TenhagenAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1409-6528
F C den BoerZaans Medical Centre, Department of Surgery, Zaandam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3754-1137
R HompesAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6094-8950
P J TanisAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3146-3310
J B TuynmanAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5952-8000
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLRode Kruis Ziekenhuis · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLZaans Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe required distal margin in partial mesorectal excision (PME) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to determine incidence and distance of distal mesorectal spread (DMS).

methodsA systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases. Articles eligible for inclusion were studies reporting on the presence of distal mesorectal spread in patients with rectal cancer who underwent radical resection.

resultsOut of 2493 articles, 22 studies with a total of 1921 patients were included, of whom 340 underwent long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). DMS was reported in 207 of 1921 (10.8%) specimens (1.2% in CRT group and 12.8% in non-CRT group), with specified distance of DMS relative to the tumor in 84 (40.6%) of the cases. Mean and median DMS were 20.2 and 20.0 mm, respectively. Distal margins of 40 mm and 30 mm would result in 10% and 32% residual tumor, respectively, which translates into 1% and 4% overall residual cancer risk given 11% incidence of DMS. The maximum reported DMS was 50 mm in 1 of 84 cases. In subgroup analysis, for T3, the mean DMS was 18.8 mm (range 8-40 mm) and 27.2 mm (range 10-40 mm) for T4 rectal cancer.

conclusionsDMS occurred in 11% of cases, with a maximum of 50 mm in less than 1% of the DMS cases. For PME, substantial overtreatment is present if a distal margin of 5 cm is routinely utilized. Prospective studies evaluating more limited margins based on high-quality preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and pathological assessment are required.

Indexed as

Margins of ExcisionRectal NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoadjuvant TherapyProspective StudiesRectumTreatment OutcomeDistal mesorectal resection marginDistal mesorectal spreadMesorectal cancer spreadPartial mesorectal excisionPME

Identifiers

PMID36036328
PMCPMC9807492
OpenAlexW4293481517

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.