SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Prognostic and clinicopathological value of perineural invasion in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Perineural invasion (PNI) is a pathological feature associated with aggressive tumor behavior in several solid malignancies. In colorectal cancer (CRC), PNI has been reported to correlate with poorer prognosis, as well as increased risks of postoperative recurrence and metastasis. However, the available evidence regarding the prognostic significance of PNI in CRC remains limited and inconsistent. Unlike previous meta-analyses that included studies across broader time span. This study focuses on recent evidence and specifically investigates the sources of heterogeneity and its clinical significance. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the prognostic and clinicopathological value of PNI in CRC. Methods: The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were all thoroughly searched between January 1, 2020, and October 9, 2025.Studies included in this review comprised cohort, case-control that reported on PNI status and survival outcomes in CRC. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and evaluated the studies' quality in accordance with PRISMA recommendations. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the studies' quality. By computing the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), the prognostic significance of PNI for CRC was evaluated. Results: A total of 9 retrospective studies were included. The pooled analysis suggested that PNI was associated with worse OS (HR = 2.23, 95%CI: 1.48-3.35, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR = 1.94, 95%CI: 1.44-2.64, P < 0.05) in patients with CRC. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in both analyses (OS: I²=79.7%; DFS: I²=67.4%), and publication bias was suggested by Egger's tests (OS: p=0.0097; DFS: p=0.0085). Conclusions: Based on recent studies, PNI was associated with poorer OS and DFS in CRC and may serve as a useful pathological marker for risk stratification. However, the findings should be interpreted cautiously because all included studies were retrospective and substantial heterogeneity and potential publication bias were present. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420251161522.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.