Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34031728›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021

Recurrence patterns and their effects on clinical outcomes after R1 resection of colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Nozomu Sakai, Katsunori Furukawa, Tsukasa Takayashiki, Satoshi Kuboki, Shigetsugu Takano, Masayuki Ohtsuka

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

6 authors.

Nozomu SakaiDepartment of General Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan.
Katsunori FurukawaDepartment of General Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan.
Tsukasa TakayashikiDepartment of General Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan.
Satoshi KubokiDepartment of General Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan.
Shigetsugu TakanoDepartment of General Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan.
Masayuki OhtsukaDepartment of General Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan. otsuka-m@faculty.chiba-u.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5091-1078

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe prognostic significance of the surgical margin status remains controversial for patients who undergo hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. This study evaluated the influence of R1 resection on recurrence patterns and prognosis in these patients.

methodsBetween January 2001 and December 2016, 232 consecutive Japanese patients underwent initial hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases. Their medical records were reviewed to evaluate recurrence and survival outcomes.

resultsRelative to patients with R0 resection, patients with R1 resection had significantly poorer recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). However, after propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in RFS and OS associated with the margin status. Nevertheless, R1 resection was associated with a significantly higher incidence of intrahepatic recurrence and early recurrence, while R0 resection was associated with a significantly higher re-resection rate for hepatic recurrence. Only eight of 55 patients with R1 resection developed recurrence at the R1 resection margin, whereas 36 patients developed recurrence at other sites/organs.

conclusionAmong patients with similar characteristics, R1 resection does not affect long-term outcomes. This suggests that R1 resection itself is not a cause of a poor prognosis, but rather a potent indicator of aggressive tumor biology.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsLiver NeoplasmsHepatectomyHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateColorectal liver metastasisPropensity scoreR1 resectionRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID34031728

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.