ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
New insights into tumor size in colorectal cancer: smaller size, higher risk?
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In colorectal cancer, the AJCC T category is defined by the depth of bowel wall invasion rather than by the absolute size of the primary tumor. The clinical value of tumor size in assessing tumor aggressiveness, metastatic risk, and prognosis remains insufficiently investigated. Aim: To evaluate the clinical value of tumor size in assessing potential metastatic risk and prognostic stratification in colorectal cancer. Methods: We retrospectively included 10,513 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent surgical treatment at FUSCC between 2008 and 2020. We integrated tumor size with clinicopathological characteristics to assess metastatic risk using machine-learning models and SHAP-based interpretation. By modeling tumor size as both a categorical and continuous variable, we further investigated its prognostic relevance using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression incorporating restricted cubic splines. Additionally, an independent cohort of 6,739 patients from Changhai Hospital was used for external validation. Results: Machine-learning identified lymph node metastasis as the primary predictive endpoint, with the CatBoost model achieving the highest AUROC of 0.800. SHAP analysis showed that smaller tumor diameter contributed positively to predicted metastatic risk. Multivariable restricted cubic spline analysis further demonstrated a significant nonlinear association between tumor diameter and OS, with mortality risk increasing as tumor diameter decreased within the approximately 0-3 cm range. Among younger male patients with locally advanced disease, tumors ≤3 cm were associated with significantly worse OS and DFS than tumors >5 cm (both Conclusion: Smaller tumor size may paradoxically indicate higher lymph node metastatic risk and poorer prognosis in a subset of patients with colorectal cancer, particularly younger male patients with locally advanced disease. Tumor size may therefore serve as a complementary factor for postoperative risk stratification beyond conventional TNM staging.
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.