Observational studyBMJ open2024
Prognostic implications of T stage in different pathological types of colorectal cancer: an observational study using SEER population-based data.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Blood-Based Circulating Tumor DNA Assays for Early Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review of Performance in Asymptomatic Screening Populations.International journal of cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Predictive and prognostic nomogram models for liver metastasis in colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasms: a large population study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesColorectal cancer (CRC) encompasses a spectrum of pathological types, each exhibiting distinct biological behaviours that challenge the conventional T-staging system's predictive efficiency. Thus, this study aims to explore the prognostic significance of the T stage across various CRC pathological types, seeking to unravel insights that could enhance prognostic assessment in this complex disease. STUDY
designWe performed a retrospective analysis using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for primary CRC cases from 2010 to 2017.
settingThe SEER database, comprising data from various US regional and state cancer registries, identified 39 321 patients with CRC. Our analysis focused on the three most common CRC pathological types: adenocarcinoma (AC), mucinous adenocarcinoma (MC) and signet ring cell carcinoma (SR). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The study used Cox regression models to evaluate how different pathological characteristics impact mortality risk in patients with CRC. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves were also applied to assess the prognostic accuracy of various tumour node metastasis (TNM)/non-mucinous (NM) stages.
resultsWe observed significant associations between T stage and mortality risk for patients with AC and MC. Notably, in comparison to those at T1 stage, patients with AC in the T4 stage demonstrated a 2.01-fold increase in mortality risk (HR=2.01, 95% CI: 1.89 to 2.15), while patients with MC at T4 stage showed a 1.42-fold increase (HR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.97). However, within the SR group, T stages did not independently impact survival, showing no significant distinction (HR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.95). Intriguingly, the traditional TNM staging systems demonstrated limited discriminatory power in predicting prognosis for patients with SR when compared with the more innovative NM staging systems.
conclusionsThis study uncovers important insights about the prognostic significance of the T stage in different types of CRC, highlighting the need for personalised assessments based on specific histological subtypes.
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.