Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36999173›Full record

ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2024

Partial mesorectal excision can be a primary option for middle rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched retrospective analysis.

Ee Jin Kim, Chan Wook Kim, Jong Lyul Lee, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Chang Sik Yu, Jin Cheon Kim

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Ee Jin KimDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Chan Wook KimDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jong Lyul LeeDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yong Sik YoonDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
In Ja ParkDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seok-Byung LimDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Chang Sik YuDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jin Cheon KimDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough partial mesorectal excision (PME) and total mesorectal excision (TME) is primarily indicated for the upper and lower rectal cancer, respectively, few studies have evaluated whether PME or TME is more optimal for middle rectal cancer.

methodsThis study included 671 patients with middle and upper rectal cancer who underwent robot-assisted PME or TME. The 2 groups were optimized by propensity score matching of sex, age, clinical stage, tumor location, and neoadjuvant treatment.

resultsComplete mesorectal excision was achieved in 617 of 671 patients (92.0%), without showing a difference between the PME and TME groups. Local recurrence rate (5.3% vs. 4.3%, P>0.999) and systemic recurrence rate (8.5% vs. 16.0%, P=0.181) also did not differ between the 2 groups, in patients with middle and upper rectal cancer. The 5-year disease-free survival (81.4% vs. 74.0%, P=0.537) and overall survival (88.0% vs. 81.1%, P=0.847) also did not differ between the PME and TME groups, confined to middle rectal cancer. Moreover, 5-year recurrence and survival rates were not affected by distal resection margins of 2 cm (P=0.112) to 4 cm (P>0.999), regardless of pathological stages. Postoperative complication rate was higher in the TME than in the PME group (21.4% vs. 14.5%, P=0.027). Incontinence was independently associated with TME (odds ratio [OR], 2.009; 95% confidence interval, 1.015-3.975; P=0.045), along with older age (OR, 4.366, P<0.001) and prolonged operation time (OR, 2.196; P=0.500).

conclusionPME can be primarily recommended for patients with middle rectal cancer with lower margin of >5 cm from the anal verge.

Indexed as

ProctectomyRectal neoplasmsRecurrenceRobot-assisted surgerySurvival

Identifiers

PMID36999173
PMCPMC11362759

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.