ArticleCancers2024
Upfront Surgery vs. Endoscopic Stenting Bridge to Minimally Invasive Surgery for Treatment of Obstructive Left Colon Cancer: Analysis of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colonic resection or self-expanding metal stents for obstructive left colon cancer: results of a national multicenter prospective cohort study (CROSCO-1).Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- One patient with synchronous multiple primary colon cancers which is easy to miss: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Acute abdomen during chemotherapy: is surgery worthwhile? Insights from a single-center experience.Updates in surgery · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft colon cancer obstruction treatment is a debated topic in the literature. Stent placement is effective as a bridge-to-surgery strategy, but there are some concerns about the oncological safety for the reported higher risk of local and peritoneal recurrence. This study aims to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients treated with stent followed by elective surgery with those treated with primary resection.
methodsThis is a retrospective observational study. We included patients of both sexes, ≥18 years old, with a histological diagnosis of intestinal adenocarcinoma, and admitted to our hospital for left colon cancer obstruction demonstrated by CT scan without metastasis or perforation. They were treated through primary resection (PR) or stent placement followed by elective surgery (SR). The two groups were compared for general characteristics, surgical outcomes, and oncological outcomes (metastasis and local recurrence) at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 3 years. Post-operative quality of life (QoL) was also investigated.
resultsThe SR group showed a shorter hospital stay, a lower post-operative mortality, a lower stoma rate at 1 year, and a higher number of minimally invasive procedures. Oncological outcomes were not different compared to the PR group. The SR group demonstrated better QoL in two out of six items on the EQ-5D-5L test.
conclusionsStent placement as a bridge-to-surgery strategy is feasible and provides better surgical outcomes in terms of post-operative complications, surgical approach, stoma rate, and QoL. Oncological outcomes were not reported differently, but further studies should be conducted to better evaluate this aspect.
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.