Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34725784›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2022

Neither Surgical Margin Status nor Somatic Mutation Predicts Local Recurrence After R0-intent Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases.

Yujiro Nishioka, Natalia Paez-Arango, Federico Oppliger Boettcher, Yoshikuni Kawaguchi, Timothy E Newhook, Yun Shin Chun, Ching-Wei D Tzeng, Hop S Tran Cao, Jeffrey E Lee, Timothy J Vreeland and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yujiro Nishioka *Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Natalia Paez-Arango *Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Federico Oppliger BoettcherDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Yoshikuni KawaguchiDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Timothy E NewhookDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Yun Shin ChunDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Ching-Wei D TzengDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Hop S Tran CaoDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Jeffrey E LeeDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Timothy J VreelandDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Jean-Nicolas VautheyDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. jvauthey@mdanderson.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4921-5427
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USBrooke Army Medical Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
TRAINING OF ACADEMIC SURGICAL ONCOLOGISTST32CA009599 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Ashley M Holder, Jennifer A. Wargo · 1988 to 2026
$13.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe evaluated the associations of surgical margin status and somatic mutations with the incidence of local recurrence (LR) and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing R0-intent (microscopically negative margin) resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

methodsPatients with CLM who underwent initial R0-intent resection and analysis of tumor tissue using next-generation sequencing during 2001-2018 were analyzed. Recurrences were classified as LR (at the resection margin), other intrahepatic recurrence, or extrahepatic recurrence. Predictors and survival effect of LR were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis.

resultsOf 552 patients analyzed, 415 (75%) had R0 resection (margin width ≥ 1.0 mm), and 38 (7%) had LR. LR incidence was not affected by surgical margin width. RAS/TP53 co-mutation was associated with increased risk of intrahepatic recurrence (67% vs. 49%; p < 0.001) and overall recurrence (p < 0.001). However, incidence of LR did not differ significantly by RAS/TP53, BRAF, SMAD4, or FBXW7 mutation. Extrahepatic disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; p = 0.034), > 8 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy (HR, 1.98; p = 0.033), tumor viability ≥ 50% (HR, 1.55; p = 0.007), RAS/TP53 co-mutation (HR, 1.69; p = 0.001), and SMAD4 mutation (HR, 2.44; p < 0.001) were independently associated with poor overall survival, but surgical margin status was not.

conclusionsAlthough somatic mutations were associated with overall recurrence, neither surgical margin width nor somatic mutations affected LR risk after R0-intent hepatectomy for CLM. LR and prognosis were likely driven by individual tumor biology rather than surgical margins.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsLiver NeoplasmsHepatectomyHumansMargins of ExcisionMutationNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisSurvival RateColorectal liver metastasesHepatectomyLocal recurrenceSomatic mutationSurgical margin

Identifiers

PMID34725784
PMCPMC11875739
OpenAlexW3208088302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.