ReviewTechniques in coloproctology2025
Prognostic impact of tumor location after abdominoperineal resection of rectal cancer: A single-center propensity score matching analysis based on 1806 cases.
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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Salvage abdominoperineal resection for anal squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of proportions.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials have revealed that abdominoperineal resection leads to inferior oncological outcomes compared with low anterior resection, especially regarding local recurrence rates (LRRs). While neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy can lower LRRs, it is linked to potential short- and long-term radiation-induced adverse effects. Consequently, meticulous patient selection for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is imperative to balance benefits and risks.
methodsThis research encompassed individuals with rectal cancer (RC) who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) from January 2006 to December 2017. The cohort was categorized into two cohorts on the basis of tumor location: the anterior cohort and the nonanterior cohort. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to mitigate selection bias, and this resulted in 767 patients in both cohorts. The primary endpoint assessed was survival without local recurrence (LR).
resultsOf the 2025 cases examined, 1806 were deemed eligible for inclusion. In the entire cohort, the incidence of LR was 9.9% (178/1806); the anterior cohort exhibited a higher rate of LR (15.2% versus 5.9%, p < 0.001). Multivariate examination revealed that anterior location was an independent risk factor (IRF) for LR (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.503, p < 0.001). In patients with stage II/III or T3/4, anterior location persisted as a predictor of increased LR. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for stage II and III tumors diminished the LR rate in anterior tumor locations (p = 0.017) but not in nonanterior locations (p = 0.390).
conclusionAnterior tumor location is an IRF for LR in RC patients. Tumor location can serve as a criterion for patient selection in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
trial registrationThe studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the National Cancer Center's Institute Research Medical Ethics Committee (23/180-3922, 11 May 2023). A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal on request.
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.