ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
Organ preservation in rectal cancer: opportunity within boundaries.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo highlight the opportunities and pitfalls of organ-preservation strategies for rectal cancer and to define the clinical circumstances in which radical total mesorectal excision (TME) remains imperative, particularly when treatment is delivered outside referral centres.
methodsTwo illustrative patients initially managed in a tertiary hospital that is not a referral centre for rectal cancer and organ-preservation strategies are presented. Clinical records, imaging, histopathology, and follow-up were reviewed. Key management decisions were compared with current European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines, as well as recent evidence from systematic reviews.
resultsCase 1 involved a bulky (10 cm), circumferential cT3N + mucinous adenocarcinoma. Despite apparent local control after transanal excision, the patient developed sphincter-destructive recurrence requiring abdominoperineal resection; final pathology was ypT3N2b KRAS-mutant. Case 2 concerned an initially pT1 rectal adenocarcinoma in a 6-cm laterally spreading tumour, but surveillance was non-standardized; the patient re-presented with metastatic (liver) mucinous adenocarcinoma 4 years later, misdiagnosed as liver abscesses. In both patients, deviation from guideline criteria (tumour size, nodal status, unfavourable histology, or inadequate follow-up) led to undertreatment and delayed radical therapy.
conclusionOrgan preservation offers functional benefits but must be confined to rigorously selected low-risk lesions within prospective protocols and high-volume centres. Radical TME remains the gold standard when guideline criteria are not fully met or staging is ambiguous.
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.