Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35625968›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

External Validation of Two Established Clinical Risk Scores Predicting Outcome after Local Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases in a Nationwide Cohort.

Karen Bolhuis, G Emerens Wensink, Marloes A G Elferink, Marinde J G Bond, Willemieke P M Dijksterhuis, Remond J A Fijneman, Onno W Kranenburg, Inne H M Borel Rinkes, Miriam Koopman, Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Prognostic impact of tumour burden score on colorectal cancer liver metastasis survival following resection: a meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Karen BolhuisDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
G Emerens WensinkDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4103-5811
Marloes A G ElferinkDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marinde J G BondDepartment of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0225-5456
Willemieke P M DijksterhuisDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Remond J A FijnemanDepartment of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2076-5521
Onno W KranenburgUtrecht Platform for Organoid Technology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2112-4390
Inne H M Borel RinkesDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Miriam KoopmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rutger-Jan SwijnenburgDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Geraldine R VinkDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6731-9660
Jeroen HagendoornDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cornelis J A PuntDepartment of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sjoerd G EliasDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jeanine M L RoodhartDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

Sacha Swarttouw-Hijmans Fund Not applicable.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimized surgical techniques and systemic therapy have increased the number of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) eligible for local treatment. To increase postoperative survival, we need to stratify patients to customize therapy. Most clinical risk scores (CRSs) which predict prognosis after CRLM resection were based on the outcome of studies in specialized centers, and this may hamper the generalizability of these CRSs in unselected populations and underrepresented subgroups. We aimed to externally validate two CRSs in a population-based cohort of patients with CRLM. A total of 1105 patients with local treatment of CRLM, diagnosed in 2015/2016, were included from a nationwide population-based database. Survival outcomes were analyzed. The Fong and more recently developed GAME CRS were externally validated, including in pre-specified subgroups (≤70/>70 years and with/without perioperative systemic therapy). The three-year DFS was 22.8%, and the median OS in the GAME risk groups (high/moderate/low) was 32.4, 46.7, and 68.1 months, respectively (p < 0.005). The median OS for patients with versus without perioperative therapy was 47.6 (95%CI [39.8, 56.2]) and 54.9 months (95%CI [48.8, 63.7]), respectively (p = 0.152), and for below/above 70 years, it was 54.9 (95%CI [49.3−64.1]) and 44.2 months (95%CI [37.1−54.3]), respectively (p < 0.005). The discriminative ability for OS of Fong CRS was 0.577 (95%CI [0.554, 0.601]), and for GAME, it was 0.596 (95%CI [0.572, 0.621]), and was comparable in the subgroups. In conclusion, both CRSs showed predictive ability in a population-based cohort and in predefined subgroups. However, the limited discriminative ability of these CRSs results in insufficient preoperative risk stratification for clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

colorectal cancerliver metastasesprediction modelresectionsurvival

Identifiers

PMID35625968
PMCPMC9139295
OpenAlexW4280600589

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.