ArticleSurgery today2013
Comparison of the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV colon cancer with early and advanced disease: the short- and long-term outcomes at a single institution.
Article in Surgery today, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An evidence-based medicine approach to the laparoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2016Review
- Minimally Invasive Resection of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Leads to an Earlier Initiation of Chemotherapy Compared to Open Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015Article
- Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for primary tumor resection in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastasis.Surgery today · 2015Article
- Differences in clinical features between laparoscopy and open resection for primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe role of resection of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) remains controversial. Laparoscopic resection has become an accepted therapeutic option for treating early stage I-III CRC; however, it has not been evaluated for use in patients with advanced stage disease.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic resection of the primary tumor exclusively in patients with stage IV colon cancer compared to open resection in patients with stage IV colon cancer and laparoscopic resection in patients with stage I-III colon cancer in terms of operative results and short- and long-term outcomes.
resultsLaparoscopic resection was performed in 35 stage IV patients and open resection was performed in 40 stage IV patients. One hundred and eighteen stage I-III patients who underwent laparoscopic resection were evaluated. In the comparison between the laparoscopic group and the open group among patients with stage IV colon cancer, postoperative recovery appeared to be better in the laparoscopic group than in the open group, as reflected by shorter times to resumption of a regular diet (p = 0.049), shorter lengths of hospitalization (p = 0.083), increased feasibility of postoperative chemotherapy (p < 0.001), shorter time intervals from surgery to chemotherapy (p = 0.031) and longer median survival (p = 0.078) at the expense of longer operative times (p = 0.025). In the comparison between the laparoscopic resection in stage IV and stage I-III disease groups, no significant differences were observed in operative results and short- and long-term outcomes, except for the rate of ostomy creation (48.5 vs. 8.5%, p = 0.02).
conclusionLaparoscopic resection of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV colon cancer achieves equivalent results to that performed in patients with stage I-III disease and that performed in patients with stage IV disease using open resection. The use of a minimally invasive approach in the laparoscopic procedure is beneficial because it results in shorter times to resumption of a normal diet, shorter lengths of hospitalization, increased feasibility of postoperative chemotherapy and shorter time intervals from surgery to chemotherapy at the expense of longer operative times. We believe that patients undergoing laparoscopic resection can receive targeted chemotherapy earlier and more aggressively, which might provide a survival benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23124678What 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.