ArticlePloS one2024
Negative prognostic impact of tumor deposits in stage III colorectal cancer patients.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic importance of tumour deposits with and without concurrent lymph node metastases in patients with stage III colon cancer.BJS open · 2026Article
- Independent prognostic value of tumor deposits in stage III colorectal cancer: a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of a modified lymph node ratio for combined colorectal cancer tumour deposits: a population-based study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Prognostic impact and independent significance of tumor deposits in early-stage colon cancer: a population-based cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Utilizing tumor deposit count as a stratification criterion in revising TNM staging system for patients with colorectal cancer: a nomogram review study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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
backgroundThe prognostic value of tumor deposits (TDs) in stage III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is poorly described based on the current tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage system. MATERIALS AND
methodsBased on the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database between 2010 to 2020 and local hospital between 2006 to 2022, the clinicopathological features of stage III CRC patients with TDs were screened by Chi-square test. Kaplan-Meier curves were performed to describe the significant difference in overall survival (OS) among the different groups, and log-rank tests were used to compare the cumulative survival distributions.
resultPatients with TDs exhibited more aggressive tumors, characterized by advanced T staging (T3&T4), N staging (N2), perineural invasion, and more advanced TNM stage. The presence of TDs was identified as a negative prognostic factor in stage III CRC patients, with the co-existence of TDs and lymph node metastasis associated the poorest prognosis. A pairwise comparison revealed no statistically significant difference between TD+N1a/b and N1c groups, while the OS of TD-LN+ (TD- N1a/b) patients was the most favorable within the N1 stage. Notably, patients with a single lymph node positive had a significantly better OS than those with a single TD positive.
conclusionThe presence of tumor deposits was a negative prognostic factor in stage III colorectal cancer patients, and the significance of tumor deposits was underestimated in the current TNM staging system.
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.