Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38584263›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2024

Prognostic factors associated with early recurrence following liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yuan Tian, Yaoqun Wang, Ningyuan Wen, Shaofeng Wang, Bei Li, Geng Liu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A novel role of secreted methionine adenosyltransferase α2 in colorectal liver metastases.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Time to surgery in patients with colorectal liver metastases.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Yuan TianDepartment of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Yaoqun WangDepartment of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Ningyuan WenDepartment of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Shaofeng WangDepartment of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Bei Li *Department of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China. libei@scu.edu.cn.
Geng Liu *Department of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China. liu2geng6@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the 3rd most common malignancy with the liver being the most common site of metastases. The recurrence rate of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) after liver resection (LR) is notably high, with an estimated 40% of patients experiencing recurrence within 6 months. In this context, we conducted a meta-analysis to synthesize and evaluate the reliability of evidence pertaining to prognostic factors associated with early recurrence (ER) in CRLM following LR.

methodsSystematic searches were conducted from the inception of databases to July 14, 2023, to identify studies reporting prognostic factors associated with ER. The Quality in Prognostic Factor Studies (QUIPS) tool was employed to assess risk-of-bias for included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed on these prognostic factors, summarized by forest plots. The grading of evidence was based on sample size, heterogeneity, and Egger's P value.

resultsThe study included 24 investigations, comprising 12705 individuals, during an accrual period that extended from 2007 to 2023. In the evaluation of risk-of-bias, 22 studies were rated as low/moderate risk, while two studies were excluded because of high risk. Most of the studies used a postoperative interval of 6 months to define ER, with 30.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.1-36.4%) of the patients experiencing ER following LR. 21 studies were pooled for meta-analysis. High-quality evidence showed that poor differentiation of CRC, larger and bilobar-distributed liver metastases, major hepatectomy, positive surgical margins, and postoperative complications were associated with an elevated risk of ER. Additionally, moderate-quality evidence suggested that elevated levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA199), lymph node metastases (LNM) of CRC, and a higher number of liver metastases were risk factors for ER.

conclusionThis review has the potential to enhance the efficacy of surveillance strategies, refine prognostic assessments, and guide judicious treatment decisions for CRLM patients with high risk of ER. Additionally, it is essential to undertake well-designed prospective investigations to examine additional prognostic factors and develop salvage therapeutic approaches for ER of CRLM.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsLiver NeoplasmsHepatectomyHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesColorectal liver metastasesEarly recurrenceLiver resectionMeta-analysisPrognostic factors

Identifiers

PMID38584263
PMCPMC11000331

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.