Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36217808›Full record

ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2023

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons' preference on rectal cancer treatment.

Audrius Dulskas, Philip F Caushaj, Domas Grigoravicius, Liu Zheng, Richard Fortunato, Joseph W Nunoo-Mensah, Narimantas E Samalavicius

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2023. 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Audrius DulskasDepartment of Abdominal and General Surgery and Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Philip F CaushajDepartment of Surgery, University of Connecticut School of Medicine and Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA.
Domas GrigoraviciusInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Liu ZhengDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Science and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Richard FortunatoDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Joseph W Nunoo-MensahDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, King's College Hospital Foundation NHS Trust, London, UK.
Narimantas E SamalaviciusInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Vilnius University · LTAllegheny General Hospital · USChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNHartford Hospital · USKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRectal cancer treatment has a wide range of possible approaches from radical extirpative surgery to nonoperative watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient.

methodsA panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a questionnaire that included other items including demographics. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in our database and remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020.

resultsOne hundred sixty-three specialists completed the survey. The majority of surgeons (n=65, 39.9%) chose the minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgery for their personal treatment of rectal cancer. For low-lying rectal cancer T1 and T2, the treatment choice was standard chemoradiation+local excision (n=60, 36.8%) followed by local excision±chemoradiotherapy if needed (n=55, 33.7%). In regards to locally advanced low rectal cancer T3 or greater, the preference of the responders was for laparoscopic surgery (n=65, 39.9%). We found a statistically significant relationship between surgeons' age and their preference for minimally invasive techniques demonstrating an age-based bias on senior surgeons' inclination toward open approach.

conclusionOur survey reveals an age-based preference by surgeons for minimally invasive surgical techniques as well as organ-preserving techniques for personal treatment of treating rectal cancer. Only 1/4 of specialists do adhere to the international guidelines for treating early rectal cancer.

Indexed as

Rectal cancer treatmentRectal neoplasmsSurgeon’s perspectiveSurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36217808
PMCPMC10475796
OpenAlexW4304163253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.