ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2017
Defining the Optimal Use of Ablation for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer to the Liver Without High-Level Evidence.
Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repeat ablation and single-session ablation in patients with multiple colorectal cancer liver metastases after chemotherapy failure.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Microwave ablation of colorectal liver metastases: Impact of a 10-mm safety margin on local recurrence in a tertiary care hospital.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementThe role of physical interventions (surgical resection and surgical/radiological ablation) for liver metastases of colorectal cancer has changed dramatically over the last 10-15 years. Whereas in the 1990s, when only those patients with up to three unilobar metastases were considered for any form of such intervention, our present approach to these physical interventions is determined by how much viable disease-free liver can be preserved (most authorities accepting 25-30% disease-free future remnant liver volume) and the possibility of further such interventions if the disease recurs in the liver. There is increasing evidence that for smaller tumours (<3 cm diameter), ablation therapy may be therapeutically the equivalent of surgical resection and possibly safer in high-risk patients with multiple comorbidities. Therefore, we now consider the use of such ablation therapies (with or without surgical resection) to be clinically effective when treating patients with multiple bilobar metastases that have shown good radiologic response to prior systemic therapy.
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.