ArticleOncology letters2024
Comparison of postoperative prognoses for resectable colorectal cancer with vs. without oncologic emergency using propensity score‑matched analyses: A single-center retrospective observational study.
Article in Oncology letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While oncological emergencies in colorectal cancer present distinct challenges, existing literature offers conflicting evidence regarding long-term outcomes. Therefore, the present study compared the postoperative prognoses between patients with and without oncological emergencies. A retrospective evaluation was conducted on patients who had undergone radical surgery for pathological stages II and III colorectal cancer at a single center between January 2012 and December 2020. Patients were classified into the non-emergency and oncological emergency groups. The status of oncologic emergency was divided into obstruction and perforation. The outcomes were compared using propensity score matching. The primary objective was to compare the postoperative prognoses between non-emergency and oncological emergency situations. The secondary objectives included comparing prognoses between obstruction and perforation, identifying the type of recurrence depending on the status of oncologic emergency, and assessing the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy for oncologic emergencies. This study included 524 patients. After propensity score matching, the prognoses of oncological emergencies were worse compared with those without any emergency, whereas those of obstruction and perforation did not significantly differ. Regarding the type of recurrence, peritoneal dissemination in obstruction and local recurrence in perforation was more common compared with that in non-emergency cases. Adjuvant chemotherapy improved the recurrence-free survival for cases with oncological emergencies. The prognoses in cases with oncological emergencies could be worse compared with those without any emergency, whereas obstruction and perforation outcomes can be comparable. The administration of adjuvant chemotherapy should be strongly considered for oncological emergencies.
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.