ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2025
Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery yields superior long-term oncological outcomes compared to traditional laparoscopic surgery in stage II-III rectal cancer.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled trial comparing robotic NOSES versus robotic TME for Mid-rectal cancer: short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Trial
- Construction of a novel prediction model based on albumin-hemoglobin score and serum microRNA-497-5p for prognosis of patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer.Oncology letters · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the long-term oncological and clinical outcomes of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) versus traditional laparoscopic surgery (TLS) in patients with Stage II-III rectal cancer.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 320 patients who underwent curative resection for Stage II-III rectal cancer between January 2020 and January 2025. Of these, 162 received NOSES and 158 underwent TLS. Perioperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, complications, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), recurrence and metastasis rates, and quality of life were evaluated. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors for long-term outcomes.
resultsCompared with TLS, NOSES resulted in shorter operative times and less intraoperative blood loss (both P < 0.001). Patients in the NOSES group experienced faster return of bowel function and shorter hospital stays (both P < 0.001). At five-year follow-up, NOSES was associated with significantly improved DFS (P = 0.014), OS (P = 0.009), and higher quality of life scores (P < 0.001). The NOSES group also exhibited fewer postoperative complications and a lower incidence of distant metastasis (P = 0.034). Multivariate analysis identified NOSES as an independent predictor of improved long-term survival and quality of life.
conclusionsNOSES offers significant advantages over TLS in the management of Stage II-III rectal cancer, including enhanced operative efficiency, accelerated recovery, reduced complications, and superior long-term oncological outcomes and quality of life. These findings support the wider clinical adoption of NOSES as a preferred minimally invasive surgical approach in eligible rectal cancer patients.
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.