SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2023
Upfront primary tumor resection versus upfront systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary Tumor Resection in Patients With Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Outcomes of upfront primary tumor resection in patients with synchronousAmerican journal of cancer research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe standard initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains debated. This study investigated whether upfront primary tumor resection (PTR) or upfront systemic therapy (ST) provides better survival outcomes for patients with mCRC.
methodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for studies published at any time from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) utilizing propensity score matching (PSM) or inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) were included. We evaluated overall survival (OS) and short-term (60-day) mortality in these studies.
resultsAfter reviewing 3,626 articles, we identified 10 studies including a total of 48,696 patients. OS differed significantly between the upfront PTR and upfront ST arms (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62; 95% CI: 0.57-0.68; p < 0.001). However, a subgroup analysis identified no significant difference in OS in RCTs (HR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.7-1.34; p = 0.83), whereas significant difference in OS occurred between the treatment arms in RCSs with PSM or IPTW (HR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.54-0.64; p < 0.001). Short-term mortality was analyzed in three RCTs, and 60-day mortality differed significantly between the treatment arms (risk ratio [RR] 3.52; 95% CI: 1.23-10.10; p = 0.02).
conclusionsIn RCTs, upfront PTR for mCRC did not improve OS and enhanced the risk of 60-day mortality. However, upfront PTR seemed to increase OS in RCSs with PSM or IPTW. Therefore, whether upfront PTR should be used for mCRC remains unclear. Further large RCTs are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.