ArticleScientific reports2024
Clinical outcomes of colorectal neoplasm with positive resection margin after endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hybrid laparo-endoscopic techniques for challenging colorectal lesions: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Rethinking surgical strategy for margin-positive only T1 colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Risk factors for residual cancer and lymph node metastasis after non-curative endoscopic resection of colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Colorectal Carcinoma with High-risk Criteria: Long-term Follow-up from the German Multicenter Registry.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Salvage Surgery After Non-Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A positive resection margin after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is associated with an increased risk of recurrence. We aimed to identify the clinical significance of positive resection margins in colorectal neoplasms after ESD. We reviewed 632 patients who had en bloc colorectal ESD at two hospitals between 2015 and 2020. The recurrence rates and presence of residual tumor after surgery were evaluated. The rate of additional surgery after ESD and recurrence rate were significantly higher in patients with incomplete resection (n = 75) compared to patients with complete resection (n = 557). When focusing solely on non-invasive lesions, no significant differences in recurrence rates were observed between the groups with complete and incomplete resection (0.2% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.057). Among 84 patients with submucosal invasive carcinoma, 39 patients underwent additional surgery due to non-curative resection. Positive vertical margin and lymphovascular invasion were associated with residual tumor. Lymphovascular invasion was associated with lymph node metastasis. However, no residual tumor nor lymph node metastases were found in patients with only one unfavorable histological factor. In conclusion, a positive resection margin in non-invasive colorectal lesions, did not significantly impact the recurrence rate. Also, in T1 colorectal cancer with a positive vertical resection margin, salvage surgery can be considered in selected patients with additional risk factors.
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.