ArticleJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2025
Pure Well-differentiated Adenocarcinoma as a Safe Factor for Lymph Node Metastasis and Recurrence of T1 Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Pure well-differentiated adenocarcinoma (PWDA) could be a safe factor against lymph node metastasis (LNM) and recurrence in patients with T1 colorectal cancer. We investigated the utility and endoscopic features of PWDA to determine its predictive ability. Methods: We analyzed the LNM and recurrence rates, along with various clinicopathological factors, including PWDA, in 315 patients with T1 colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection at our center. PWDA was defined as a lesion consisting of well-differentiated adenocarcinoma only. Three pathologists evaluated the consistency of the PWDA diagnosis and performed inter- and intraobserver assessments of PWDA and lymphatic invasion. Endoscopic features of PWDA was also examined. Results: The LNM, recurrence, and PWDA rates in patients with T1 colorectal cancer were 9.5%, 2.9%, and 31.1%, respectively. Significant differences were observed in T1b (100% vs. 82.8%; p = 0.014) and non-PWDA (100% vs. 65.6%; p < 0.001) between patients with and without LNM. Multivariate analyses showed that non-PWDA was an independent risk factor for LNM (odds ratio [OR], 12.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.59-92.0; p = 0.016). Furthermore, significant differences in venous invasion (44.4% vs. 19.6%; p < 0.001), and non-PWDA (100% vs. 68.0%; p < 0.001) were observed between patients with and without recurrence. The agreement among three pathologists on the diagnosis of PWDA was acceptable (kappa value > 0.5). Surface redness (p < 0.001), a rugged surface (p < 0.01), fold convergence (p < 0.001), and an impression of fullness (p = 0.031) were significantly related with PWDA. Conclusions: PWDA can predict safety against LNM and recurrence in patients with T1 colorectal cancer.
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.