ReviewHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2021
Renewed considerations on the utility (or the futility) of hepatic resections for breast cancer liver metastases.
Review in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence trends and surgical outcomes of synchronous liver metastasis across cancer types: a population-based cohort study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Breast cancer liver metastasis: time to resection and criteria.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2022Article
- To resect or not to resect?-the dilemma in oligometastatic breast cancer.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2022Article
- Utility of liver resection for breast cancer liver metastases, time for action.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceIndication for liver resection (LR) for localized hepatic metastases from breast cancer (BC) is still a matter of debate.
objectiveA literature review of recent scientific papers pertaining to hepatectomies for BC liver metastases (LM). EVIDENCE REVIEW: We based our systematic review on case series on literature reviews, comparative studies and cost-utility analysis which have been selected based on criteria regarding surgery, possible prognostic factors and evaluation of long-term survival.
findingsThere is a strong inhomogeneity in the reported data, with 5-year survivals ranging from 21% to 58%. There is no agreement in the evaluation of prognostic variables predicting good survival, with the only exception of the time of treatment of the primary BC until the diagnosis of metastases. Three out of the four comparative studies report better survivals for patients who underwent a hepatectomy in comparison to those treated with chemotherapy alone, but their strength in terms of scientific evidence is weak. The only cost-utility analysis revealed that 2 out of the 3 scenarios considered were in favor of the treatment with surgery followed by conventional chemotherapy.
conclusionsThere is no definitive proof on the effectiveness of LRs for BC LM. Surgery can be proposed when it is possible to perform radical surgery, with R0 margins and saving at least 30% of the liver with its vascular and biliary connections. Stable skeletal metastases are not a contraindication. The interval between treatment of the primary location and diagnosis of hepatic metastases is the only prognosis criteria available.
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.