Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33553300›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021

What is the optimal number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles for resectable colorectal liver oligometastases?

Qichen Chen, Xingchen Li, Jianjun Zhao, Xinyu Bi, Zhiyu Li, Zhen Huang, Yefan Zhang, Jianguo Zhou, Hong Zhao, Jianqiang Cai

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

10 authors.

Qichen ChenDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xingchen LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jianjun ZhaoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xinyu BiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhiyu LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhen HuangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yefan ZhangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jianguo ZhouDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Hong ZhaoDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jianqiang CaiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal number of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) cycles for resectable colorectal liver oligometastases (CLOM) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the optimal number of NAC cycles.

methodsOne hundred twenty-nine consecutive patients were included in this study. X-tile analysis was implemented to investigate the optimal cut-off point for NAC cycles. Propensity score matching was performed to reduce selection bias. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox risk regression models were used to analyse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

resultsThe optimal cut-off point for NAC cycles was 5. There were no significant differences in R0 resection, pathological response or postoperative complications between the groups with a low number of NAC cycles group (≤5 cycles, n=80) and high number of NAC cycles (>5 cycles, n=49). Patients with a high number of NAC cycles were more likely to have NAC toxicity than those with a low number of cycles (87.8%

conclusionsFewer than 5 NAC cycles was optimal for biologically resectable CLOM patients. Giving more than 5 NAC cycles was unnecessary because a higher number of NAC cycles has more unfavourable survival and higher NAC toxicities, while leading to similar R0 resection rates and pathological responses.

Indexed as

Colorectal liver oligometastases (CLOM)cyclesneoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC)outcomes

Identifiers

PMID33553300
PMCPMC7859783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.