Management of Malignant Rectal Pain and Tenesmus: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Malignant rectal pain (MRP) and tenesmus cause significant morbidity for cancer patients at all stages of disease. There is little evidence to guide management of these symptoms. Objective: The objective of this review was to summarize the existing evidence base for palliative management of MRP and tenesmus outside of standard oncologic or surgical management. Design: A systematic review of PubMed and Embase was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using preselected search terms for publications between 1980 and January 2017. Setting/Subjects: Studies that described management for patients with tenesmoid pain from malignant tumors of the rectum, anus, or perineum were identified. Measurements: The primary outcome was response of pain to treatment. Results: The search produced 1412 titles. Twenty articles met criteria for inclusion in the review, including 11 case series and 9 case reports. A variety of treatments were found with most patients receiving interventional procedures, but overall evidence to support any particular intervention is limited and of poor quality. Conclusions: This review highlights the limited current evidence base for medical and interventional treatments for MRP and tenesmus. Further study is needed to clarify the best approach to managing these challenging symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".