Observational studySurgical endoscopy2025
Evaluating the accuracy of preoperative endoscopic localization for colorectal cancer: post hoc analysis of a prospective study.
Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative localization of colorectal cancer (CRC) is essential for accurate resection and treatment planning. However, colonoscopy-based tumor localization may lack optimal accuracy, potentially affecting surgical outcomes and patient management. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of colonoscopic localization of CRC and identify predictors of preoperative endoscopic localization errors.
methodsThis post hoc analysis utilized data from a prospective observational study conducted between June 2016 and June 2018. The accuracy of preoperative colonoscopic localization was compared with surgical localization, which is considered the gold standard. Endoscopic and surgical tumor locations were categorized into eight segments. Surgical localization was confirmed by the presence of visible tattoos during surgery and pathological examination of the resected specimens. Predictors of preoperative endoscopic localization errors were also analyzed.
resultsA total of 342 patients were included in this study. The accuracy of preoperative endoscopic localization compared with surgical localization was 79.2% overall (colon: 90.3%; rectum: 57.8%). Lesion location in the rectum was significantly associated with localization errors (P < 0.001). Tumors limited to the colon, patient age ≥ 65 years [odds ratio (OR) 12.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57-91.6; P = 0.0167], and an insertion time ≥ 10 min (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.23-7.92; P = 0.0163) were independently associated with localization errors.
conclusionEndoscopic CRC localization was accurate in approximately 80% of cases when compared with surgical localization. Patients aged ≥ 65 years and those with insertion times ≥ 10 min in the colon may be at increased risk of localization errors. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis study protocol was registered in the University Hospital Medical Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000021012).
Indexed as
Identifiers
40603613What 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.