ReviewTechniques in coloproctology2013
The management of rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: a modern surgical dilemma.
Review in Techniques in coloproctology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of resecting primary tumor in MNETs patients with unresectable liver metastases.Oncotarget · 2017Pooled it
- Outcomes of simultaneous resection for colorectal liver metastases: A nationwide cohort study (2005-2022).Surgery open science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOne in ten patients with rectal cancer presents with synchronous colorectal liver metastases. We present an up-to-date review of the different surgical strategies available for rectal cancer patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases.
methodA literature review of MEDLINE, Cochrane and Google scholar was performed.
resultsTwenty retrospective studies comparing staged versus simultaneous resections were found. Overall survival was similar for both approaches whilst the length of stay was decreased in simultaneous resections. Only two studies comparing the 'reverse' versus staged or simultaneous resections were found. The studies investigating resection versus non-resection for rectal primaries with unresectable liver metastases were limited.
conclusionSimultaneous resections are a reasonable alternative to staged resections for either advanced rectal cancers with limited liver disease or early rectal cancers with extensive liver disease. Currently, staged resections are favoured over simultaneous resections in patients with locally advanced rectal cancers with extensive liver disease. There are too few studies to determine the safety of reverse resections in the context of locally advanced rectal cancers. A resection of the primary tumour or a non-surgical intervention can be justified in the management of the rectal cancer primary in the presence of unresectable liver metastases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.