ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Risk factors for residual cancer and lymph node metastasis after non-curative endoscopic resection of colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2026. 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
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsFollowing a non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer, current guidelines recommend additional surgery based on high-risk pathological features. However, the actual rates of residual disease, such as residual cancer and lymph node metastasis (LNM), remain unclear and risk factors vary significantly across studies. We aimed to determine the true incidence of residual cancer and LNM and identify independent risk factors to guide surgical decision-making.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included patients who underwent radical surgery after non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer at four hospitals between 2015 and 2020. Non-curative resection was defined by positive margins, deep submucosal invasion (≥ 1000 μm), poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, or high-grade tumor budding in accordance with current guidelines.
resultsAmong 517 patients, residual cancer was found in 3.7% and LNM in 7.7% of the cases. Independent predictors of residual cancer were ESD procedure (OR 9.87, P < 0.001), piecemeal resection (OR 5.51, P = 0.017), positive lateral margin (OR 5.88, P = 0.004), and positive deep margin (OR 10.30, P = 0.003). For LNM, submucosal invasion depth ≥ 1000 μm (OR 4.66, P = 0.015), poor differentiation (OR 4.30, P = 0.026), lymphovascular invasion (OR 2.42, P = 0.016), and positive deep margin (OR 2.26, P = 0.018) were significant risk factors. Risk increased substantially with cumulative factors: patients with 0-1 risk factors had minimal residual cancer rates (< 1%), while those with ≥ 2 factors showed exponentially higher risks.
conclusionsThe actual incidence of residual cancer and LNM after non-curative endoscopic resection is relatively low. A stepwise framework that evaluates local completeness and LNM risk independently and then integrates the two assessments may support individualized decision-making, potentially sparing low-risk patients from radical surgery while ensuring appropriate intervention for high-risk 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.