Long-term outcomes of additional surgery versus surveillance-only clinical decision for early colorectal cancer patients after non-curative endoscopic resection: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The clinical decision-making regarding post hoc management of early colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who have undergone non-curative endoscopic resection (ER) remains a subject of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical outcomes between patients undergoing additional surgery and those receiving surveillance only. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across three major medical databases: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. STATA software was utilized for pooling analysis. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale. RESULTS: A total of 15 eligible studies encompassing 3,508 early CRC patients were included in this meta-analysis (additional surgery group: 1,974 cases; surveillance-only group: 1,533 cases). All included studies demonstrated good methodological quality, with Newcastle-Ottawa scores no less than 6. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that compared to the surveillance-only group, patients in the additional surgery group exhibited significantly improved overall survival (OR = 2.95, 95% CI: 2.05-4.24, P < 0.05), enhanced recurrence-free survival (OR = 2.53, 95% CI = 1.38-4.62, P < 0.05), a reduced recurrence rate (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.22-3.13, P < 0.05), and a lower local recurrence rate (OR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.12-4.95, P < 0.05). No significant sources of heterogeneity were identified among the studies analyzed; publication bias was also deemed acceptable across these investigations. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analyses based on inclusion criteria and age stratification which revealed notable differences in effect sizes between groups (JSCCR subgroup: OR = 2.09; 95% CI = 1.32-3.30 versus Non-JSCCR subgroup: OR = 1 .54; 95% CI = 0.89 -2.65, indicating negative results). Pooling analysis showed no significant difference between subgroups when stratified by age using a cutoff value of 65 years old. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients who underwent surveillance only, those receiving additional surgical treatment demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of overall survival, recurrence-free survival, recurrence rates, and control of local recurrences. This suggests that such an approach may represent a more optimal clinical decision for early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who have received non-curative endoscopic resection (ER). Furthermore, this study indicates that the inclusion criteria significantly influence the reported outcomes. Notably, age did not affect the recurrence rate. Overall, this is the first meta-analysis aimed at exploring and clarifying this ongoing controversy.
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 | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.070 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".