Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26078580›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2015

Treatment strategies for colorectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: Which way to go?

Peter Ihnát, Petr Vávra, Pavel Zonča

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04683783 (RENACI Project), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04683783 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

RENACI Project: National Registry of Liver First Approach

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorHospital Miguel ServetRan2019 to 2020Enrolled168ConditionsColonic Cancer, Rectal Cancer, Liver Metastases
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter IhnátPeter Ihnát, Petr Vávra, Pavel Zonča, Department of Surgical Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava 70300, Czech Republic.
Petr VávraPeter Ihnát, Petr Vávra, Pavel Zonča, Department of Surgical Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava 70300, Czech Republic.
Pavel ZončaPeter Ihnát, Petr Vávra, Pavel Zonča, Department of Surgical Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava 70300, Czech Republic.
University of Ostrava · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo offer an up-to-date review of all available treatment strategies for patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed to identify articles related to the management of patients with synchronous CLM. A search of the electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar was conducted in September 2014. The following search terms were used: synchronous colorectal liver metastases, surgery, stage IV colorectal cancer, liver-first approach, and up-front hepatectomy. These terms were employed in various combinations to maximize the search. Only articles written in English were included. Particular attention was devoted to studies and review articles that were published within the last six years (2009-2014). Additional searches of the cited references from primary articles were performed to further improve the review. The full texts of all relevant articles were accessed by two independent reviewers.

resultsPoor long-term outcomes of patients with synchronous CLM managed by a traditional treatment strategy have led to questions about the timing and sequence of possible therapeutic interventions. Thus, alternative paradigms called reverse strategies have been proposed. Presently, there are four treatment strategies available: (1) primary first approach (or traditional approach) comprises resection of the primary colorectal tumor followed by chemotherapy; subsequent liver resection is performed 3-6 mo after colorectal resection (provided that CLM are still resectable); (2) simultaneous resection of the primary colorectal tumor and CLM during a single operation presents intriguing options for a highly select group of patients, which can be associated with significant postoperative morbidity; (3) liver-first (or chemotherapy-first) approach comprises preoperative chemotherapy (3-6 cycles) followed by liver resection, adjuvant chemotherapy, and resection of the primary colorectal tumor (it is best suited for patients with asymptomatic primary tumors and initially unresectable or marginally resectable CLM); and (4) up-front hepatectomy (or "true" liver-first approach) includes liver resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, colorectal resection, and adjuvant chemotherapy (strategy can be offered to patients with asymptomatic primary tumors and initially resectable CLM).

conclusionNone of the aforementioned strategies appears inferior. It is necessary to establish individual treatment plans in multidisciplinary team meetings through careful appraisal of all strategies.

Indexed as

ColectomyHepatectomyAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinomaChemotherapy, AdjuvantColorectal NeoplasmsDrug Administration ScheduleHumansLiver NeoplasmsNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingPatient SelectionRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsColorectal cancerLiver-first approachReverse strategySimultaneous resectionUp-front hepatectomy

Identifiers

PMID26078580
PMCPMC4462744
OpenAlexW584491266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.