Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35928602›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2022

Impact of the extent of lung resection on postoperative outcomes of pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer metastases: an exploratory systematic review.

Elena Prisciandaro, Laurens J Ceulemans, Dirk E Van Raemdonck, Herbert Decaluwé, Paul De Leyn, Luca Bertolaccini

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prognostic factors after pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer lung metastasis.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. More is more in pulmonary metastasectomy?Journal of thoracic disease · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Elena PrisciandaroDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Laurens J CeulemansDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Dirk E Van RaemdonckDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Herbert DecaluwéDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Paul De LeynDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Luca BertolacciniDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven · BEKU Leuven · BEEuropean Institute of Oncology · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary metastasectomy (PM) with curative intent has become a widely accepted treatment for lung metastases from solid tumours in selected patients, with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. In particular, PM is strongly recommended in selected patients with secondary lesions from colorectal cancer (CRC), due to its excellent postoperative prognosis. Nevertheless, the impact of the extent of PM on recurrence and survival remains controversial. This review aimed at assessing differences in short- and long-term postoperative outcomes depending on the extent of lung resection for lung metastases. Methods: A systematic literature review of studies comparing anatomical and non-anatomical resections of lung metastases was performed (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration: 254931). A literature search for articles published in English between the date of database inception and January 31, 2021 was performed in EMBASE (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective studies, randomised and non-randomised controlled trials were included. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to determine the risk of bias for the primary outcome for included studies. Results: Out of 432 papers, three retrospective non-randomised studies (1,342 patients) were selected for systematic reviewing. Although our search design did not exclude any primary tumour histology, all selected studies investigated surgical resection of lung metastases from CRC. Because of variations in the compared surgical approaches to pulmonary metastases, a meta-analysis proved unfeasible. There was a tendency to perform anatomical resections for larger metastases. Multivariate analyses revealed that anatomical resections were protective for recurrence-free survival (RFS), while the impact of such procedures on overall survival (OS) remained uncertain. A significantly higher incidence of resection-margin recurrences was observed in patients who underwent non-anatomical resections. Discussion: Anatomical resections of lung metastases from CRC seem to be associated with improved RFS. However, well-constructed comparative clinical trials focusing on the extent of PM are needed.

Indexed as

anatomical lung resectionLung metastasesnon-anatomical lung resectionpulmonary metastasectomy (PM)

Identifiers

PMID35928602
PMCPMC9344403
OpenAlexW4285299006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.