ArticleTranslational cancer research2024
Endoscopic resection
Article in Translational cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Development and validation of survival prediction nomograms for patients with early-stage rectal cancer: a population-based study.Translational cancer research · 2025Article
- Efficacies of radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients treated with total mesorectal excision or other types of surgery: an updated meta-analysis.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) patients treated with either endoscopic resection (ER) alone or combined ER with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) have unknown survival rates. A national descriptive epidemiological study was conducted to compare the long-term survival of patients with T1 stage CRC with or without the two different treatment options. Methods: Our study identified the records of patients with T1-stage CRC between 2010 and 2018 by searching the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Long-term survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models based on patient demographic and cancer parameters. Results: After propensity score matching (PSM), 825 T1-stage CRC patients were finally enrolled in this study, with 718 patients treated with ER and 107 patients treated with ER + CRT. The overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) rates were similar between the two treatment options (OS: P=0.47; CSS: P=0.28). According to subgroup analysis, older patients and patients with rectal tumor locations exhibited significantly higher OS and CSS rates in the ER + CRT group than in the ER group (OS: P<0.0001; CSS: P<0.0001). Conclusions: The findings from the SEER database showed that OS and CSS rates were similar between the ER and ER + CRT treated groups. Older patients and patients with rectal cancer benefited the most from ER + CRT treatment.
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.