ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2023
A proposal for grading the risk of lymph node metastasis after endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A Retrospective Multicenter Study of Risk Factors, Stratification, and Prognosis of Lymph Node Metastasis in T1 and T2 Colorectal Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Treatment of T1 Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 2023Review
- An artificial intelligence prediction model outperforms conventional guidelines in predicting lymph node metastasis of T1 colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAt present, for patients with early colorectal cancer as long as having any one risk factor of lymph node metastasis (LNM) after endoscopic resection (ER), additional surgery will be considered, regardless of the degree of LNM risk; however, most patients are free of LNM. This study aimed to further grade these patients according to LNM risk.
methodsWe assessed 271 patients with T1 colorectal cancers treated initially with ER to analyze the correlation between LNM-associated risk factors and LNM rate. Differences in this rate between groups were estimated using the χ
resultsPoorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (Por) (3.4% vs. 40%, p < 0.001) and lymphovascular infiltration (LV) (1.6% vs. 29.0%, p < 0.001) were the only parameters correlated with LNM. When we divided the cases into LV-negative (LV(-)) and LV-positive (LV(+)) groups, we found a significantly higher LNM rate in the LV(+) group (29.0% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001). Additionally, the rate of LNM in those positive for each parameter did not differ from the control rate in the same group, except in the Por subgroup. When the cases were divided into four groups based on the presence of LV infiltration and Por, the LNM rate in each group was 2/233 cases (0.8%) in the LV(-)Por(-) group, 2/7 cases (28.5%) in the LV(-)Por(+) group, 7/28 cases (25.0%) in the LV(+)Por(-) group, and 2/3 cases (66.6%) in the LV(+)Por(+) group.
conclusionsBased on LV and histological differentiation, patients were classified into three LNM risk grades: low (LNM, 0.8%), moderate (LNM, 25.0-28.5%), and high (LNM, 66.6%).
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.