ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Disparity in endoscopic localisation of early distal colorectal cancers: a retrospective cohort analysis from a single institution.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate staging of distal colorectal cancers is paramount in guiding neoadjuvant therapy, peri-operative, and ostomy planning. Early colonic lesions can be difficult to visualise on computed tomography (CT) scans, with tumour location solely deduced via endoscopy with the potential for introducing error. We aimed to address the paucity in literature in this area and assessed the accuracy of radiological and endoscopic localisation of distal colorectal cancers.
methodsRetrospective analysis of an electronic database of patients at a large District General Hospital (DGH) diagnosed with distal colorectal cancer between January 2014 to January 2023 was performed. Patient demographics, investigations, endoscopic, and operative findings were analysed. Outcomes were assessed to determine disparities between pre-operative endoscopy and final tumour location.
resultsA total of 212 patients were endoscopically diagnosed with distal sigmoid tumour. Of these, 207 (97.6%) had a CT scan performed with 25.1% (52/207) lesions not being identified on this imaging modality with the remainder (74.9%; 155/207) being reported as visible. 38.2% (79/207) of tumours were in the sigmoid colon, 17.4% (36/207) rectosigmoid, and 19.3% (40/207) in the rectum. Pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in 42.5% (90/212) of cases showing 84 tumours: 6.0% (5/84) sigmoid colon, 9.5% (8/84) rectosigmoid and 83.3% (70/84) rectal cancers (upper: 34, mid-rectum: 26, low: 10), with one anal cancer. 42.3% (22/52) of patients with non-visible lesions on CT had MRI scans: 68.2% (15/22) had rectal cancer (upper: 10, mid-rectum: 4, low: 1). Of the 30 where MRI was not performed, 46.7% (14) had sigmoid cancer, 16.7% (5) rectosigmoid, and 33.3% (10) rectal intraoperatively. Overall, 30.7% (65/212) of patients reported as having a distal sigmoid lesion endoscopically in fact had rectal cancer intra-operatively (rectosigmoid lesions excluded).
conclusionEndoscopic localisation of distal colorectal tumours can be unreliable for accurate staging and operative planning. A pre-operative MRI scan should be considered in such instances, and particularly for non-visible lesions on CT scan. This may improve peri-operative planning, staging accuracy and patient outcomes.
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.