ArticleJournal of minimally invasive surgery2026
Pathological risk stratification after endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer: a comparative analysis of international guidelines.
Article in Journal of minimally invasive surgery, 2026. 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.
- Risk or reflex? Why T1 colorectal cancer guidelines need a precision overhaul.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has steadily increased. Although endoscopic resection is curative for many patients, lymph node metastasis (LNM) remains problematic, often prompting additional colectomy after endoscopic therapy. This study aimed to comparatively analyze major international guidelines for post-resection management of T1 CRC, summarize evidence supporting the key pathological risk factors for LNM, and examine the effect of divergent definitions and thresholds on variations in clinical decision-making. Methods: Within North America, Europe, and East Asia, current and comprehensive guidelines issued by internationally recognized professional societies for CRC management were included in the analysis. Each guideline was reviewed for its issuing organization, target population, scope, evidence methodology, consensus process, and update frequency. Our evaluation assessed how each guideline addressed individual pathological risk factors associated with LNM, specifically focusing on five key shared features. Results: Five pathological features were consistently recognized as increasing LNM risk: lymphovascular invasion, poor histological differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, tumor budding, and positive or indeterminate resection margins. Overall, although the guidelines shared the core pathological risk factors, their relative weights differed. Eastern guidelines were found to favor surgery based on a single adverse feature, whereas Western approaches prioritize cumulative risk and patient-specific factors. Conclusion: By highlighting areas of consensus and controversy, this comparative analysis underscores the limitations of binary risk stratification and the resulting burden of overtreatment; it also discusses emerging strategies to support more precise, individualized management of T1 CRC.
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.