Guidelines 2000 for Colon and Rectal Cancer Surgery

Clicks: 1
ID: 295020
2001
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #282 of 333 articles by views in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 333 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background: Oncologic resection techniques affect outcome for colon cancer and rectal cancer, but standardized guidelines have not been adopted. The National Cancer Institute sponsored a panel of experts to systematically review current literature and to draft guidelines that provide uniform definitions, principles, and practices. Methods: Methods were similar to those described by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in developing practice guidelines. Experts representing oncology and surgery met to review current literature on oncologic resection techniques for level of evidence (I–V, where I is the best evidence and V is the least compelling) and grade of recommendation (A–D, where A is based on the best evidence and D is based on the weakest evidence). Initial guidelines were drafted, reviewed, and accepted by consensus. Results: For the following seven factors, the level of evidence was II, III, or IV, and the findings were generally consistent (grade B): anatomic definition of colon versus rectum, tumor–node–metastasis staging, radial margins, adjuvant R0 stage, inadvertent rectal perforation, distal and proximal rectal margins, and en bloc resection of adherent tumors. For another seven factors, the level of evidence was II, III, or IV, but findings were inconsistent (grade C): laparoscopic colectomy; colon lymphadenectomy; level of proximal vessel ligation, mesorectal excision, and extended lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (all three for rectal cancer); no-touch technique; and bowel washout. For the other four factors, there was little or no systematic empirical evidence (grade D): abdominal exploration, oophorectomy, extent of colon resection, and total length of rectum resected. Conclusions: The panel reports surgical guidelines and definitions based on the best available evidence. The availability of more standardized information in the future should allow for more grade A recommendations.
Reference Key
openalex_W2108509187 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors H. Nelson, Nicholas J. Petrelli, Arthur M. Carlin, Jean Couture, J. Fleshman, José G. Guillem, Brent Miedema, Daisuke Ota, Daniel J. Sargent
Journal JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Year 2001
DOI
10.1093/jnci/93.8.583
URL
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-pdf/93/8/583/10891376/583.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.