Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39235090›Full record

ArticleBJS open2024

Short-term outcomes after primary total mesorectal excision (TME) versus local excision followed by completion TME for early rectal cancer: population-based propensity-matched study.

Annabel S van Lieshout, Lisanne J H Smits, Julie M L Sijmons, Susan van Dieren, Stefan E van Oostendorp, Pieter J Tanis, Jurriaan B Tuynman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BJS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Annabel S van LieshoutDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2105-1531
Lisanne J H SmitsDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5889-7939
Julie M L SijmonsTreatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4914-4537
Susan van DierenTreatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3084-0495
Stefan E van OostendorpDepartment of Surgery, Rode Kruis Ziekenhuis, Beverwijk, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6969-7956
Pieter J TanisDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3146-3310
Jurriaan B TuynmanDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5952-8000

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer screening programmes have led to a shift towards early-stage colorectal cancer, which, in selected cases, can be treated using local excision. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision (two-stage approach) may be associated with less favourable outcomes than primary total mesorectal excision (one-stage approach). The aim of this population study was to determine the distribution of treatment strategies for early rectal cancer in the Netherlands and to compare the short-term outcomes of primary total mesorectal excision with those of local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision.

methodsShort-term data for patients with cT1-2 N0xM0 rectal cancer who underwent local excision only, primary total mesorectal excision, or local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision between 2012 and 2020 in the Netherlands were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. Patients were categorized according to treatment groups and logistic regressions were performed after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the end-ostomy rate.

resultsFrom 2015 to 2020, the proportion for the two-stage approach increased from 22.3% to 43.9%. After matching, 1062 patients were included. The end-ostomy rate was 16.8% for the primary total mesorectal excision group versus 29.6% for the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (P < 0.001). The primary total mesorectal excision group had a higher re-intervention rate than the local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision group (16.7% versus 11.8%; P = 0.048). No differences were observed with regard to complications, conversion, diverting ostomies, radical resections, readmissions, and death.

conclusionThis study shows that, over time, cT1-2 rectal cancer has increasingly been treated using the two-stage approach. However, local excision followed by completion total mesorectal excision seems to be associated with an elevated end-ostomy rate. It is important that clinicians and patients are aware of this risk during shared decision-making.

Indexed as

Propensity ScoreRectal NeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNetherlandsPostoperative ComplicationsProctectomyRectumTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID39235090
PMCPMC11375580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.