A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Systematic review and meta-analysis of local resection or transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus radical resection in stage i rectal cancer: A real standard? | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Current guidelines recommend radical resection for stage I rectal cancer. However, since screening programs are being installed, an increasing number of cancers are being detected in early stages. Endoscopic resection is often performed at the time of diagnosis. This systematic review was undertaken to review the evidence on endoscopic approach vs. radical resection for stage I rectal cancer. Recommendations were issued based on the GRADE methodology and risk stratification used in clinical practice. A systematic search (until March 2015) identified 2 meta-analyses and 1 additional randomized trial. For the primary outcomes (overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence-free survival and metastasis-free survival) no evidence could be found on the superiority of local or radical resection. Secondary outcomes (blood loss, hospital stay, operative time, number of permanent stomas and perioperative deaths) were in favour of local resection. The authors strongly recommend radical resection for T2 rectal cancer, but consider 'en bloc' local resection sufficient for pT1 sm1 rectal cancers when confirmed pathologically. Discussion by a multidisciplinary team and adequate surveillance remain mandatory.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.03.008DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

radical resection
20
rectal cancer
16
local resection
12
resection stage
12
stage rectal
12
resection
9
systematic review
8
recommend radical
8
local
5
radical
5

Similar Publications