Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39847226›Full record

ReviewTechniques in coloproctology2025

Positive lateral lymph node turned negative after neoadjuvant therapy-surgery or observation?

E G M van Geffen, M Kusters

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

E G M van GeffenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M KustersDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.kusters@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-2468-9186

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the adoption of neoadjuvant chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision as the standard in rectal cancer care, there has been marked improvement in the local recurrence rates. In this context, restaging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a key role in the assessment of tumor response, occasionally enabling organ-sparing approaches. However, the role of restaging MRI in evaluating lateral lymph nodes remains limited. Most studies suggest a high risk of lateral local recurrence regardless of a decrease in lymph node size on restaging MRI. Therefore, it is recommended that clinical decisions should rely on the primary MRI scan. Watchful waiting may be appropriate only in cases of a clinical complete response with substantial downsizing of lateral lymph nodes (≤ 4.0 mm). Notably, some lateral lymph nodes may enlarge during follow-up despite complete tumor response, in which case, lateral lymph node dissection can be considered while preserving the rectum. Thus, continuous surveillance of lateral lymph nodes is essential during watchful waiting. Restaging MRI may hold greater importance for smaller lymph nodes (5.0-6.9 mm), as those with persistent malignant features on imaging carry a 13% risk of lateral recurrence at 4 years. Understanding these risks is critical when engaging in shared decision-making with the patient.

Indexed as

Lymph NodesNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRectal NeoplasmsWatchful WaitingHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingDownsizingLateral lymph node dissectionLateral lymph nodesNeoadjuvant therapyRectal cancer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.