ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
Outcomes and prognostic factors of repeat pulmonary metastasectomy.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary metastasectomy and survival in osteosarcoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgery-related prognostic factors.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesInformation on prognostic factors after repeat pulmonary metastasectomy (PM) is limited, and outcomes after a third PM are not well documented.
methodsA single-institute retrospective study was conducted. Between 2000 and 2020, 68 patients underwent repeat PM for pulmonary metastases from various cancers. Outcomes and prognostic factors for the second PM and outcomes after the third PM were analysed.
resultsThis study included 39 men and 29 women. The mean age at second PM was 53.2 years old. The primary tumours were soft tissue sarcoma in 24 patients, colorectal cancer in 19 and osteosarcoma in 10. The interval between the first PM procedure and detection of pulmonary metastasis after the first PM (months) was ≤12 in 37 patients and >12 in 31 patients. At the second PM, 20 patients underwent lobectomy or bilobectomy, and 48 underwent sublobar resection. Complete resection was achieved in 60 patients, and 52 patients experienced recurrence after the second PM. The 5-year relapse-free survival and overall survival rates after the second PM were 27% and 48%, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that the interval between the first PM and the subsequent detection of pulmonary metastasis (≤12 months) was a poor prognostic factor for both relapse-free survival and overall survival after the second PM. Seventeen patients underwent a third PM, 3 of whom achieved a 3-year disease-free survival.
conclusionsPatients with a period of >12 months between the first PM and the subsequent detection of pulmonary metastases showed favourable outcomes and are thus considered good candidates for second PM. A third PM may be beneficial for selected patients.
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.