Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31831062›Full record

Trial reportTrials2019

Pulmonary Metastasectomy versus Continued Active Monitoring in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC): a multicentre randomised clinical trial.

Tom Treasure, Vern Farewell, Fergus Macbeth, Kathryn Monson, Norman R Williams, Chris Brew-Graves, Belinda Lees, Olivia Grigg, Lesley Fallowfield, PulMiCC Trial Group

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 90 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
23.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT01106261 nacompletednot on this map

A Randomised Trial of Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2010 to 2020Enrolled93ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Pulmonary MetastasesArmsMetastasectomy, Active monitoring
NCT05808790 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Colorectal Pulmonary Metastases: Pulmonary Metastasectomy Versus Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy: a Phase III Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAmsterdam UMC, location VUmcRan2024 to 2030Enrolled394ConditionsLung Metastases, Colorectal Cancer MetastaticArmsMinimally invasive pulmonary metastasectomy, Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 214 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) randomized controlled trial: a systematic review of published responses.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: health utility scores by EQ-5D-3L in a randomized controlled trial show no benefit from lung metastasectomy.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2021
    Trial
  9. Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer: updated analysis of 93 randomized patients - control survival is much better than previously assumed.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2020
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Immune phenotype and RAS/BRAF status predict outcomes after lung metastasectomy for colorectal cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Prognostic factors after pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer lung metastasis.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Tom TreasureClinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, WC1H 0BT, UK. tom.treasure@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9358-7610
Vern FarewellMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Fergus MacbethCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4Y, UK.
Kathryn MonsonSussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Falmer, BN1 9RX, UK.
Norman R WilliamsSurgical and Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), University College London, London, W1W 7JN, UK.
Chris Brew-GravesSurgical and Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), University College London, London, W1W 7JN, UK.
Belinda LeesNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
Olivia GriggMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Lesley FallowfieldSussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Falmer, BN1 9RX, UK.
PulMiCC Trial Group
MRC Biostatistics Unit · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBCardiff University · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 11393Cancer Research UK 15954Cancer Research UK 19399Cancer Research UK 25350
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLung metastasectomy in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without good evidence of survival or palliative benefit. We aimed to test its effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

methodsMultidisciplinary teams in 13 hospitals recruited participants with potentially resectable lung metastases to a multicentre, two-arm RCT comparing active monitoring with or without metastasectomy. Other local or systemic treatments were decided by the local team. Randomisation was remote and stratified by site with minimisation for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, the number of metastases, and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The central Trial Management Group were blind to patient allocation until completion of the analysis. Analysis was on intention to treat with a margin for non-inferiority of 10%.

resultsBetween December 2010 and December 2016, 65 participants were randomised. Characteristics were well-matched in the two arms and similar to those in reported studies: age 35 to 86 years (interquartile range (IQR) 60 to 74); primary resection IQR 16 to 35 months previously; stage at resection T1, 2 or 3 in 3, 8 and 46; N1 or N2 in 31 and 26; unknown in 8. Lung metastases 1 to 5 (median 2); 16/65 had previous liver metastases; carcinoembryonic antigen normal in 55/65. There were no other interventions in the first 6 months, no crossovers from control to treatment, and no treatment-related deaths or major adverse events. The Hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing metastasectomy with control, was 0.82 (95%CI 0.43, 1.56).

conclusionsBecause of poor and worsening recruitment, the study was stopped. The small number of participants in the trial (N = 65) precludes a conclusive answer to the research question given the large overlap in the confidence intervals in the proportions still alive at all time points. A widely held belief is that the 5-year absolute survival benefit with metastasectomy is about 35%: 40% after metastasectomy compared to < 5% in controls. The estimated survival in this study was 38% (23-62%) for metastasectomy patients and 29% (16-52%) in the well-matched controls. That is the new and important finding of this RCT.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01106261. Registered on 19 April 2010.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMetastasectomyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingSurvival RateWatchful WaitingColorectal cancerLung metastasectomyRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID31831062
PMCPMC6909580
OpenAlexW2994641908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.