ArticleCureus2023
Outcome of Operated Colorectal Cancers in Relation to the Type of Initial Referral.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim Since the introduction of the target referral system, there has been controversy about its value and whether it affected the short- and long-term outcomes of colorectal cancer surgeries. With contradicting results, this study highlights differences in personal and tumour characteristics, management differences, and outcomes in each referral pathway, including target pathway referrals for suspected cancers, emergency presentations, routine referrals, and incidentally discovered cancers during screening. Methods A retrospective study of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients operated on between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014, with records dating to the end of the five-year follow-up, was extracted anonymously from the database of CRC outcomes at the North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, London. The total number of patients operated on through the four pathways was 176, with full records and competent follow-ups. Patients were classified according to the mode of referral: two-week wait (2WW or target), routine, emergency, and incidental discovery referrals. Comparisons were made between these groups with regard to personal and tumour characteristics, management, and outcome. Results It has been demonstrated by this study that target referrals present mainly with stage I cancers as compared to emergency referrals that present with more stage II (IIa+ IIb+ IIc). The highest percentage of cancer locations within the large bowel was rectal, followed by sigmoid in both target and emergency groups; 8.8% of target patients needed neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the form of FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy protocol with the addition of radiotherapy in patients with advanced rectal cancers, compared to 13.3% of emergency patients. Conclusion The colorectal 2WW system was the main pathway supplying colorectal cancer operations; it mostly showed earlier cancers than the other referral groups; its cancers were mostly rectosigmoid with less need for adjuvant chemotherapy; fewer recurrences; and it also showed a lower five-year mortality rate than the emergency group.
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.