Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36589624›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022

Synchronous liver and peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer: Is cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy combined with liver resection a feasible option?

Sara Di Carlo, Giuseppe Cavallaro, Francesca La Rovere, Valeria Usai, Leandro Siragusa, Paolo Izzo, Luciano Izzo, Alessia Fassari, Sara Izzo, Marzia Franceschilli and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Stage IV Colorectal Cancer Management and Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sara Di CarloDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe CavallaroDepartment of Surgery, Unit of Oncologic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Francesca La RovereDepartment of Surgery, Unit of Oncologic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Valeria UsaiDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Leandro SiragusaDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Paolo IzzoDepartment of Surgery, Unit of Oncologic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Luciano IzzoDepartment of Surgery, Unit of Oncologic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Alessia FassariDepartment of Surgery, Unit of Oncologic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sara IzzoDepartment of Surgery, Unit of Oncologic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Marzia FranceschilliDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Piero RossiDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Sirvjo DhimoleaDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery Unit, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Enrico FioriDepartment of Surgery, Unit of Oncologic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Simone SibioDepartment of Surgery, Unit of Oncologic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, synchronous liver resection (LR), cytoreductive surgery (CRS), and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal liver and peritoneal metastases have been contraindicated. Nowadays, clinical practice has promoted this aggressive treatment in selected cases. This study aimed to review surgical and survival results of an extensive surgical approach including CRS with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and LR. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were matched to find the available literature on this topic. The search period was limited to 10 years (January 2010-January 2021). A threshold of case series of 10 patients or more was applied. Results: In the search period, out of 114 studies found about liver and peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer, we found 18 papers matching the inclusion criteria. Higher morbidity and mortality were reported for patients who underwent such an extensive surgical approach when compared with patients who underwent only cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC. Also, survival rates seem worse in the former than in the latter. Conclusion: The role of combined surgical strategy in patients with synchronous liver and peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer remains controversial. Survival rates and morbidity and mortality seem not in favor of this option. A more accurate selection of patients and more restrictive surgical indications could perhaps help improve results in this subgroup of patients with limited curative options.

Indexed as

colorectal metastases.cytoreductive surgeryHIPECliver metastasesliver resectionperitoneal metastases

Identifiers

PMID36589624
PMCPMC9797824
OpenAlexW4312224075

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.