ArticleDEN open2027
Worst Histology-Based Risk Stratification for Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients With T1b Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Pathology-based Study.
Article in DEN open, 2027. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Histological subtype is an important pathological factor in risk stratification for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in T1 colorectal cancer (CRC); however, conventional predominant-type assessment may miss minor poorly differentiated components in T1b CRC. We aimed to develop a T1b-specific risk stratification framework incorporating a reproducible worst histology (WH) approach. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 488 patients with pathologically confirmed pT1b CRC who underwent surgical resection with lymph node dissection. Histological evaluation was performed using three approaches: dominant histology (DH), WH, and WH focusing on poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (WH-por). For each approach, independent risk factors for LNM were identified. Patients without these factors were defined as the low-risk subgroup, and LNM rates were compared with the conventional Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) criteria. Results: In patients with T1b colon cancer, the WH-por approach demonstrated favorable performance for identifying LNM risk compared with the DH and WH approaches. In contrast, in rectal cancer, the WH approach performed better than the WH-por approach. In the colon cohort, the LNM rate in the low-risk subgroup was 1.7%, compared with 4.1% under the JSCCR criteria. In the rectal cohort, the corresponding rates were 8.0% and 8.6%, respectively. Conclusions: A WH-based approach improves LNM risk stratification in T1b CRC and may help identify carefully selected patients at low risk of LNM, supporting more individualized clinical decision-making, including careful consideration of the necessity of additional surgical resection.Trial Registration: N/A.
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.