ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2025
Local excision for T1 rectal cancer: A population-based study of practice patterns and oncological outcomes.
Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Local excision for T1 rectal cancer: A population-based study of practice patterns and oncological outcomes.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimLocal excision (LE) for T1 rectal cancer may be recommended in those with low-risk disease, while resection is typically recommended in those with a high risk of luminal recurrence or lymph node metastasis. The aim of this work was to compare survival between resection and LE.
methodThis was a population-based retrospective cohort study set in the Canadian province of Ontario. Patients were individuals with T1Nx rectal cancer between 2010 and 2014 and demographics, disease characteristics, treatments and outcomes were determined using linked administrative databases. This study does not include clinical information regarding individual patient treatment decisions. The main outcome measure was overall survival (OS).
resultsA total of 719 patients were identified, including 359 with upfront resection, 113 with LE and immediate resection (<90 days) and 247 with LE with definitive intent. The majority of LEs were performed via colonoscopy. Piecemeal excision (42% vs. 49%, p = 0.28) and positive margin (50% vs. 77%, p < 0.01) rates were high in both LE groups, with the highest rate in those with immediate resection. The prevalence of poor differentiation (<5%, p = 0.70) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (14%, p = 0.80) was similar across groups. In those with LE with definitive intent, 21% ultimately underwent resection (median 150 days, interquartile range 114-181 days) and 4% received radiation. There was no difference in 5-year OS between groups (resection 83.2% vs. LE and immediate resection 82.3% vs. definitive LE 83.3%; p = 0.33). Adjusted analyses demonstrated no association between approach and survival [definitive intent LE hazard ratio (HR) 0.97 (95% CI 0.70-1.35), LE and immediate resection HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.60-1.45), upfront resection HR 1 (Ref); p = 0.98]. Differentiation, piecemeal excisions and LVI were not associated with OS in the LE groups.
conclusionThere were no observed differences in survival between those who underwent resection, LE and immediate resection and definitive intent LE. Although, these are observational data, they call into question the reflexive decision to offer radical resection for those with suspected T1 rectal cancer.
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.