ArticleSurgery today2021
Resection strategy for colorectal liver metastasis focusing on intrahepatic vessels and resection margins.
Article in Surgery today, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of KRAS Status on the Required Surgical Margin Width for Colorectal Liver Metastasis Resection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Multimodal Management of Colorectal Liver Metastases: State of the Art.Oncology reviews · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe analyzed the impact of surgical margins and vessel preservation on the oncological outcomes of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).
methodsIn this retrospective study, resected CRLM (n = 242) from 116 patients were assigned to one of the following groups: Group A, apart from vessels (n = 201); Group B, hepatic vein contact (n = 27); or Group C, Glissonean pedicle contact (n = 25). We analyzed the local recurrence rates (LRR) in each group.
resultsThe total LRR and that in Groups A, B, and C were 11.6%, 10.4%, 7.4%, and 20%, respectively. In group A, R1 resections were associated with a significantly higher LRR than R0 resections (27.6% vs 7.6%, respectively; P = 0.001); however, the margin widths were not related to the LRR. In group B, the LRR for hepatic vein preservation and resection did not differ. In group C, the Glissonean pedicle preservation group had a higher LRR than the Glissonean pedicle resection group (66.7% vs 5.3%, respectively; P = 0.001). The 5-year overall survival rate of the local recurrence group (25%) was significantly lower than that of the no recurrence group (84%, P < 0.001) and the intrahepatic recurrence group (60%, P = 0.026).
conclusionR0 resections for CRLM, apart from those involving vessels, can achieve local control. While preserving hepatic vein contact with CRLM is acceptable, the Glissonean pedicle should be resected because of the higher LRR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33675410What 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.