ArticleSurgery today2016
Feasibility of the liver-first approach for patients with initially unresectable and not optimally resectable synchronous colorectal liver metastases.
Article in Surgery today, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Resection Sequence in Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastasis: Primary vs. Liver First.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Liver-first approach to the treatment of patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of liver-first versus classical strategy for synchronous colorectal liver metastases.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of sequential perioperative chemotherapy for high-risk colorectal liver metastases.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Tumor response and outcome after reverse treatment for patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastasis: a cohort study.BMC surgery · 2020Article
- Article
- Postoperative complications following aggressive repeat hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastasis have adverse oncological outcomes.Surgery today · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer and initially unresectable or not optimally resectable liver metastases, who were treated using the liver-first approach in the era of modern chemotherapy in Japan.
methodsWe analyzed and compared data retrospectively on patients with asymptomatic resectable colorectal cancer and initially unresectable or not optimally resectable liver metastases, who were treated either using the liver-first approach (n = 12, LF group) or the primary-first approach (n = 13, PF group).
resultsBoth groups of patients completed their therapeutic plan and there was no mortality. Postoperative morbidity rates after primary resection and hepatectomy, and post-hepatectomy liver failure rate were comparable between the groups (p = 1.00, p = 0.91, and p = 0.55, respectively). Recurrence rates, median recurrence-free survival since the last operation, and 3-year overall survival rates from diagnosis were also comparable between the LF and PF groups (58.3 vs. 61.5 %, p = 0.87; 10.5 vs. 18.6 months, p = 0.57; and 87.5 vs. 82.5 %, p = 0.46, respectively).
conclusionsThe liver-first approach may be an appropriate treatment sequence without adversely affecting perioperative or survival outcomes for selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26315324What 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.