ArticleKorean journal of clinical oncology2022
Minimally invasive treatments for early colorectal cancer: comparison of endoscopic resection and laparoscopic surgery.
Article in Korean journal of clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Korean Rectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Committee Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rectal Cancer version 2.0.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Guideline
- Long-term outcomes and lymph node metastasis following endoscopic resection with additional surgery or primary surgery for T1 colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer among patients with disabilities.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Endoscopic treatment and laparoscopic surgery are minimally invasive options for early treatment of colorectal cancer, however, more evidence of the long-term outcomes between the two procedures is needed to guide clinical decisions. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the oncologic outcomes between endoscopic and laparoscopic treatment for early colorectal cancer. Methods: The study group included 60 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment and 38 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for early colorectal adenocarcinoma between January 2010 and December 2013 at a single study site. Results: Histopathological diagnoses showed that 43 (78.3%) carcinomas in the endoscopic submucosal dissection group were mucosal to sm1, 13 (21.7%) were sm2 or deeper, and 17 high-risk cases (28.3%) in the endoscopic group underwent additional surgery. The median operation time, time to sips of water, and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the endoscopic group than in the laparoscopic group. The overall survival rates of patients in the endoscopic group and laparoscopic groups were 91.5% and 87.4%, respectively (P=0.391), and the disease-free survival rates were 90.4% and 87.4% (P=0.614), respectively. Systemic recurrences occurred in two patients (1.6%) in the endoscopic group and one patient (2.0%) in the laparoscopic group. Local recurrence combined with systemic recurrence in one patient (0.8%) in the endoscopic group. Conclusion: Endoscopic resection for early colorectal cancer can be performed safely with better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery.
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.