Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34076807›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2021

Treatment Strategies and Prognosis of Patients With Synchronous or Metachronous Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Population-Based Study.

C Bakkers, R J Lurvink, A Rijken, S W Nienhuijs, N F Kok, G J Creemers, C Verhoef, V E Lemmens, F N van Erning, I H De Hingh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

C Bakkers *Department of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, P. O. Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
R J Lurvink *Department of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, P. O. Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2692-0994
A RijkenDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, P. O. Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
S W NienhuijsDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, P. O. Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
N F KokDepartment of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
G J CreemersDepartment of Medical Oncology, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
C VerhoefDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
V E LemmensDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, Netherlands.
F N van ErningDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht, Netherlands.
I H De HinghDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Cancer Institute, P. O. Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, Netherlands. Ignace.d.hingh@catharinaziekenhuis.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to compare treatment strategies and survival of patients with synchronous colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) and patients with metachronous CPM in a nationwide cohort.

methodsAll patients from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with synchronous or metachronous CPM whose primary colorectal cancer (CRC) was diagnosed between 1 January and 30 June 2015 were included in the study. Treatments were categorized as (A) cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy [CRS-HIPEC]; (B) palliative treatment; or (C) best supportive care. Overall survival (OS) for all the patients and disease-free survival (DFS) for those who underwent CRS-HIPEC were compared between the two groups.

resultsOf 7233 patients, 743 had a diagnosis of CPM, including 409 patients with synchronous CPM and 334 patients with metachronous CPM. The median OS was 8.1 months for the patients with synchronous CPM versus 12 months for the patients with metachronous CPM (p = 0.003). After multivariable correction, OS no longer differed between the patients with synchronous CPM and those with metachronous CPM (HR 1.03 [0.83-1.27]). The patients with metachronous CPM more often underwent CRS-HIPEC than the patients with synchronous CPM (16 % vs 8 %; p = 0.001). The two groups did not differ statistically in terms of DFS and OS (median DFS, 21.5 vs 14.1 months, respectively; p = 0.094; median OS, 37.8 vs. 35.8 months, respectively; p = 0.553).

conclusionThis population-based study showed that survival for the patients with synchronous CPM and patients with metachronous CPM did not significantly differ. This suggests that a similar prognosis may be expected for patients selected for treatment regardless of the onset of CPM.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsHyperthermia, InducedPeritoneal NeoplasmsCombined Modality TherapyCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresHumansPrognosisSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID34076807
PMCPMC8591028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.