SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2024
Perianal Mucinous Adenocarcinoma: A Case Report and a Systematic Review of the Literature.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 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.
- Painless perianal mucinous adenocarcinoma: A case report and literature review.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Surgically Resected Early Anal Gland Mucinous Adenocarcinoma Resemble a Benign Perianal Cyst: A Case Report.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMucinous adenocarcinoma of anus is an uncommon neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract. In most of the cases, early diagnosis of this disease is difficult since its symptoms frequently mimic benign inflammatory conditions.
methodsA systematic PubMed and Scopus search was conducted, a propos of a case report.
resultsOne hundred fifty patients from 93 case reports were included. The mean age of the patients was 60.5 years (range: 18-81). The majority of them were males (124 out of 150, 82.7%), while the main known risk factor was the history of chronic fistula (109 out of 150, 72.7%). Recurrent perianal sepsis and perianal pain were the principal symptoms at the time of presentation. No symptoms have been reported only in three patients (3 out of 150, 2%). Regarding the prior surgical history of the patients, multiple abscess drainage and perianal fistula's related interventions were present in 62 (41.3%) and 19 (12.7%) patients, respectively. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was administered in 53 out of 150 patients (35.3%), while the majority of them have been treated with combined treatment of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. APR and its variations were the most applied surgical treatment (68%). Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was administered almost up to one-third of the included patients (34%). Recurrence of the disease was reported in 41 out of 150 patients (27.3%). Death was reported in 44 out of 150 patients (29.3%).
conclusionReview of the available published literature suggests that perianal mucinous adenocarcinoma is an extremely rare neoplasia. Τhere is no consensus as far as the diagnosis and the treatment strategies, due to the rarity of this neoplasm. High degree of clinical suspicion as well as histopathological confirmation is the principal requisites for the diagnosis of mucinous adenocarcinoma, especially in the ground of chronic ulcero-proliferative perianal lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39422801What 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.