Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30877495›Full record

Observational studyAnnals of surgical oncology2019

Impact of Synchronous Versus Metachronous Onset of Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases on Survival Outcomes After Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC): A Multicenter, Retrospective, Observational Study.

Judith E K R Hentzen, Koen P Rovers, Hendrien Kuipers, Willemijn Y van der Plas, Lukas B Been, Frederik J H Hoogwater, Robert J van Ginkel, Patrick H J Hemmer, Gooitzen M van Dam, Ignace H J T de Hingh and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Annals of surgical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Effect ofGastroenterology report · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

11 authors.

Judith E K R HentzenDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.e.k.r.hentzen@umcg.nl.
Koen P RoversDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Hendrien KuipersDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Willemijn Y van der PlasDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Lukas B BeenDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Frederik J H HoogwaterDepartment of Surgery, Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Robert J van GinkelDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Patrick H J HemmerDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gooitzen M van DamDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ignace H J T de HinghDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Schelto KruijffDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCareful selection of patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is crucial. It remains unknown whether the time of onset of colorectal PM (synchronous vs metachronous) influences surgical morbidity and survival outcomes after CRS with HIPEC.

methodsPatients with histologically proven colorectal PM who underwent CRS with HIPEC between February 2006 and December 2017 in two Dutch tertiary referral hospitals were retrospectively included from a prospectively maintained database. The onset of colorectal PM was classified as synchronous (PM diagnosed at the initiational presentation with colorectal cancer) or metachronous (PM diagnosed after initial curative colorectal resection). Major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between patients with synchronous colorectal PM and those with metachronous colorectal PM using Kaplan-Meier analyses, proportional hazard analyses, and a multivariate Cox regression analysis.

resultsThe study enrolled 433 patients, of whom 231 (53%) had synchronous colorectal PM and 202 (47%) had metachronous colorectal PM. The major postoperative complication rate and median OS were similar between the patients with synchronous colorectal PM and those with metachronous colorectal PM (26.8% vs 29.7%; p = 0.693 and 34 vs 33 months, respectively; p = 0.819). The median DFS was significantly decreased for the patients with metachronous colorectal PM and those with synchronous colorectal PM (11 vs 15 months; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.26).

conclusionsMetachronous onset of colorectal PM is associated with early recurrence after CRS with HIPEC compared with synchronous colorectal PM, without a difference in OS or major postoperative complications. Time to onset of colorectal PM should be taken into consideration to optimize patient selection for this major procedure.

Indexed as

Chemotherapy, Cancer, Regional PerfusionColorectal NeoplasmsCombined Modality TherapyCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHyperthermia, InducedMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Multiple PrimaryNeoplasms, Second PrimaryPeritoneal NeoplasmsPrognosisProspective StudiesRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30877495
PMCPMC6545176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.