ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2015
Differences in clinical features between laparoscopy and open resection for primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer.
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2015. 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.
- Has the open surgical approach in colorectal cancer really become uncommon?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a case-matched study comparing TaTME versus standard laparoscopic TME.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
- Article
- Factors associated with postoperative complications and 1-year mortality after surgery for colorectal cancer in octogenarians and nonagenarians.Clinical interventions in aging · 2016Article
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
purposeTo identify differences in clinical features between laparoscopy and open resection for primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer. We also evaluated short-term and oncologic outcomes after laparoscopy and open surgery.
methodsA total of 100 consecutive stage IV patients undergoing open (n=61) or laparoscopic (n=39) major resection were analyzed. There were four cases (10%) of conversion to laparotomy in the laparoscopy group.
resultsPathological T4 tumors (56% vs 26%), primary colon cancers (74% vs 51%), and larger tumor diameter (6 vs 5 cm) were more commonly managed with open surgery. Right colectomy was more common in the open surgery group (39%) and low anterior resection was more common in the laparoscopy group (39%, P=0.002). Hepatic metastases in segments II, III, IVb, V, and VI were more frequently resected with laparoscopy (100%) than with open surgery (56%), although the difference was not statistically significant. In colon and rectal cancers, mean operative time and 30-day complication rates of laparoscopy and open surgery did not differ. In both cancers, mean time to soft diet and length of hospital stay were shorter in the laparoscopy group. Mean time from surgery to chemotherapy commencement was significantly shorter with laparoscopy than with open surgery. In colon and rectal cancers, 2-year cancer-specific and progression-free survival rates were similar between the laparoscopy and open surgery groups.
conclusionBased on our findings, laparoscopy can be selected as an initial approach in patients with a primary tumor without adjacent organ invasion and patients without primary tumor-related symptoms. In selected stage IV patients, tumor factors such as primary rectal tumor, peritoneal carcinomatosis, or liver metastasis may not be absolute contraindications for a laparoscopic approach.
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.