Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32675538›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgery2020

Survival Advantage of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection For Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials and Propensity-score Matched Studies.

Nicholas L Syn, Tousif Kabir, Ye Xin Koh, Hwee Leong Tan, Louis Z Wang, Brian Zhaojie Chin, Ian Wee, Jin Yao Teo, Bee Choo Tai, Brian K P Goh

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 16 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. [Evidence of minimally invasive oncological surgery of the liver].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

4 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.

Nicholas L SynDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Tousif KabirDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Ye Xin KohDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Hwee Leong TanDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Louis Z WangYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Brian Zhaojie ChinFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Ian WeeDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Jin Yao TeoDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Bee Choo TaiBiostatistics & Modelling Domain, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, Singapore, Singapore.
Brian K P GohDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

backgroundRandomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption.

methodsSurvival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease.

resultsIndividual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease.

conclusionsThis patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.

Indexed as

AgedBayes TheoremColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHepatectomyHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLaparoscopyLaparotomyLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisPropensity ScoreProportional Hazards Models

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.