Annals of Coloproctology

Display

Sort by :

Original Articles

Colorectal cancer

Evaluation of the utility of a nomogram for predicting lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer in shared decision-making in clinical practice: a survey-based study: Hyeon Seung Kim, Kyung Su Han, Min Wan Lee, Dae Kyung Sohn, Chang Won Hong, Dong Woon Lee, Kiho You, Sung Chan Park, Byung Chang Kim, Bun Kim, Jae Hwan Oh; Ann Coloproctol. 2025;41(4):303-309. Published online August 25, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2025.00318.0045

958 View
35 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
In 2019, we reported a novel nomogram to predict lymph node metastasis (LNM) in T1 colorectal cancer. Herein, we conducted a survey-based study to evaluate the clinical utility of this nomogram in determining the need for additional surgery after endoscopic resection for high-risk T1 colorectal cancer.
Methods
A survey was conducted among 77 members of the Korean Society of Coloproctology and 25 members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The survey assessed decision-making regarding additional surgery after endoscopic resection for high-risk T1 colorectal cancer according to various predicted LNM rates (3%, 10%, and 27%) and tumor locations (anal verge [AV] 2, 7, and 25 cm). Additionally, participants provided feedback regarding the reliability, usefulness, and potential adoptability of the prediction model in patient counseling.
Results
Of the 2,314 surveys distributed, 102 responses were analyzed. A trend was observed in which tumors located closer to the anus and associated with a lower predicted risk of LNM were less likely to lead respondents to opt for surgery (e.g., AV 2 cm and 3% of predicted LNM risk, 21.6% opt for surgery vs. AV 25 cm and 27% of predicted LNM risk, 98.0% opt for surgery). Additionally, 94.1% of the respondents reported that the prediction model would be helpful in clinical decision-making and patient counseling.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that the nomogram is an effective and reliable tool for guiding treatment strategies and enhancing consultations in patients with T1 colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons’ preference on rectal cancer treatment: Audrius Dulskas, Philip F. Caushaj, Domas Grigoravicius, Liu Zheng, Richard Fortunato, Joseph W. Nunoo-Mensah, Narimantas E. Samalavicius; Ann Coloproctol. 2023;39(4):307-314. Published online October 11, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00255.0036

6,333 View
134 Download
7 Web of Science
6 Citations

Graphical Abstract Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
Rectal cancer treatment has a wide range of possible approaches from radical extirpative surgery to nonoperative watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient.
Methods
A panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a questionnaire that included other items including demographics. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in our database and remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020.
Results
One hundred sixty-three specialists completed the survey. The majority of surgeons (n=65, 39.9%) chose the minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgery for their personal treatment of rectal cancer. For low-lying rectal cancer T1 and T2, the treatment choice was standard chemoradiation+local excision (n=60, 36.8%) followed by local excision±chemoradiotherapy if needed (n=55, 33.7%). In regards to locally advanced low rectal cancer T3 or greater, the preference of the responders was for laparoscopic surgery (n=65, 39.9%). We found a statistically significant relationship between surgeons’ age and their preference for minimally invasive techniques demonstrating an age-based bias on senior surgeons’ inclination toward open approach.
Conclusion
Our survey reveals an age-based preference by surgeons for minimally invasive surgical techniques as well as organ-preserving techniques for personal treatment of treating rectal cancer. Only 1/4 of specialists do adhere to the international guidelines for treating early rectal cancer.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Performance reporting design in artificial intelligence studies using image-based TNM staging and prognostic parameters in rectal cancer: a systematic review
Minsung Kim, Taeyong Park, Bo Young Oh, Min Jeong Kim, Bum-Joo Cho, Il Tae Son
Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(1): 13. CrossRef
Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes
Chungyeop Lee, In Ja Park
The World Journal of Men's Health.2024; 42(2): 304. CrossRef
Effects of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Oncologic Outcomes in Patients With Stage ⅡA Rectal Cancer Above the Peritoneal Reflection Who Did Not Undergo Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy
Hyo Seon Ryu, Jong Lyul Lee, Chan Wook Kim, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Yong Sang Hong, Tae Won Kim, Chang Sik Yu
Clinical Colorectal Cancer.2024; 23(4): 392. CrossRef
Comparative analysis of organ preservation attempt and radical surgery in clinical T2N0 mid to low rectal cancer
Hyeung-min Park, Jaram Lee, Soo Young Lee, Chang Hyun Kim, Hyeong Rok Kim
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Beyond survival: a comprehensive review of quality of life in rectal cancer patients
Won Beom Jung
Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(6): 527. CrossRef
Unveiling the profound advantages of total neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer: a trailblazing exploration
Kyung Uk Jung, Hyung Ook Kim, Hungdai Kim, Donghyoun Lee, Chinock Cheong
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2023; 105(6): 341. CrossRef

International society of university colon and rectal surgeons survey of surgeons’ preference on rectal cancer treatment: Published online November 30, 1999

608 View
0 Download

Abstract: tive watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient.
Methods
A panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a questionnaire that included other items including demographics. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in our database and remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020.
Results
One hundred sixty-three specialists completed the survey. The majority of surgeons (n=65, 39.9%) chose the minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgery for their personal treatment of rectal cancer. For low-lying rectal cancer T1 and T2, the treatment choice was standard chemoradiation+local excision (n=60, 36.8%) followed by local excision±chemoradiotherapy if needed (n=55, 33.7%). In regards to locally advanced low rectal cancer T3 or greater, the preference of the responders was for laparoscopic surgery (n=65, 39.9%). We found a statistically significant relationship between surgeons’ age and their preference for minimally invasive techniques demonstrating an age-based bias on senior surgeons’ inclination toward open approach.
Conclusion
Our survey reveals an age-based preference by surgeons for minimally invasive surgical techniques as well as organ-preserving techniques for personal treatment of treating rectal cancer. Only 1/4 of specialists do adhere to the international guidelines for treating early rectal cancer.

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search