ReviewCancers2023
Endoscopic Treatment of T1 Colorectal Cancer.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for localized rectal cancer (2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Guideline
- Sodium butyrate-induced autophagy in colorectal cancer unveils the Ca²⁺/CaMKKβ signaling pathway as a potential therapeutic target.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- McKittrick-Wheelock Syndrome, a Rare Cause of Nonresponsive Persistent Dyselectrolytemia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative microRNA signatures based on liquid biopsy to identify lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer patients undergoing upfront surgery or endoscopic resection.Cell death discovery · 2025Article
- Surgeon assessment of significant rectal polyps using white light endoscopy alone and in comparison to fluorescence-augmented AI lesion classification.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Commonly accepted criteria for curative resection of T1 colorectal cancer include R0 resection with horizontal and vertical clear margins (R0), absence of lympho-vascular or vessel infiltration (L0, V0), a low to moderate histological grading (G1/2), low tumor cell budding, and limited (<1000 µm) infiltration into the submucosa. However, submucosal infiltration depth in the absence of other high-risk features has recently been questioned as a high-risk situation for lymph-node metastasis. Consequently, endoscopic resection techniques should focus on the acquisition of qualitatively and quantitively sufficient submucosal tissue. Here, we summarize the current literature on lymph-node metastasis risk after endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer. Moreover, we discuss different endoscopic resection techniques with respect to the quality of the resected specimen.
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.