ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025
Why did we encounter a pCRM-positive specimen whose preoperative MRI indicates negative mesorectal fascia involvement in middle to low rectal cancer?
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to examine why we encounter a pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM)-positive specimen whose preoperative MRI indicates negative mesorectal fascia involvement in middle to low rectal cancer.
methodsForty-four consecutive patients included in this study had c(yc)T1-3 primary rectal adenocarcinoma without mesorectal fascia involvement and underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of Kansai Medical University Hospital from January 2014 to April 2018. We adopted three checkpoints to investigate the misleading point causing positive pCRM (≤ 1 mm). (1) c(yc)CRM diagnosis by two radiologists with more than 20 and 15 years of experience in rectal cancer MRI diagnosis. (2) The specimen was assessed using the TME score presented by Nagtegaal. (3) We compared the standard sectioning according to UK guidelines (group A; n = 26) with the specimen MRI image navigation-based section (group B; n = 18) in terms of estimation of pCRM by c(yc)CRM.
resultsWe achieved a "complete" resection specimen in all cases. A simple correlation coefficient in group B revealed a significant correlation between c(yc)CRM and pCRM (r = 0.663, p = 0.00513); this correlation was not significant in group A (r = 0.261, p = 0.19824). However, tests for differences between linear regression coefficients in groups A and B showed no significant differences (p = 0.12596). There were five cases of pCRM ≤ 1 mm: three in group A and two in group B. An anterior lesion caused pCRM ≤ 1 mm in three cases; the tumor deposits or extramural vascular invasion caused the other cases.
conclusionThe cause of misleading pCRM was the inaccurate preoperative MRI diagnosis of c(yc)CRM.
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.