Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36676671›Full record

ArticleMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022

Poorer Survival in Patients with Cecum Cancer Compared with Sigmoid Colon Cancer.

Shibo Song, Jiefu Wang, Heng Zhou, Wenpeng Wang, Dalu Kong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Osteoporosis in rheumatoid arthritis: a new perspective on risk factors and clinical prediction models.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Cystathionine-The Journal of international medical research · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Shibo SongDepartment of Endoscopy, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6326-0852
Jiefu WangDepartment of Colorectal Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin 300060, China.
Heng ZhouDepartment of Oncology Surgery, People's Hospital of QingXian, Cangzhou 062655, China.
Wenpeng WangDepartment of Colorectal Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin 300060, China.
Dalu KongDepartment of Colorectal Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin 300060, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: An increasing number of studies have shown the influence of primary tumor location of colon cancer on prognosis, but the prognostic difference between colon cancers at different locations remains controversial. After comparing the prognostic differences between left-sided and right-sided colon cancer, the study subdivided left-sided and right-sided colon cancer into three parts, respectively, and explored which parts had the most significant prognostic differences, with the aim to further analyze the prognostic significance of primary locations of colon cancer. Materials and Methods: Clinicopathological data of patients with colon cancer who underwent radical surgery from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program database were analyzed. The data was divided into two groups (2004−2009 and 2010−2015) based on time intervals. Two tumor locations with the most significant survival difference were explored by using Cox regression analyses. The prognostic difference of the two locations was further verified in survival analyses after propensity score matching. Results: Patients with right-sided colon cancer had worse cancer-specific and overall survival compared to left-sided colon cancer. Survival difference between cecum cancer and sigmoid colon cancer was found to be the most significant among six tumor locations in both 2004−2009 and 2010−2015 time periods. After propensity score matching, multivariate analyses showed that cecum cancer was an independent unfavorable factor for cancer specific survival (HR [95% CI]: 1.11 [1.04−1.17], p = 0.001 for 2004−2009; HR [95% CI]: 1.23 [1.13−1.33], p < 0.001 for 2010−2015) and overall survival (HR [95% CI]: 1.09 [1.04−1.14], p < 0.001 for 2004−2009; HR [95% CI]: 1.09 [1.04−1.14], p < 0.001 for 2010−2015) compared to sigmoid colon cancer. Conclusions: The study indicates the prognosis of cecum cancer is worse than that of sigmoid colon. The current dichotomy model (right-sided vs. left-sided colon) may be inappropriate for the study of colon cancer.

Indexed as

Sigmoid NeoplasmsCecumHumansNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSurvival Analysiscecum cancercolon cancercompareprognosissigmoid colon cancer

Identifiers

PMID36676671
PMCPMC9864791

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.