ArticleCancers2024
No Indication for Routine Resection of Surgical Scars during Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCareful macroscopic assessment of surgical scars is needed to avoid routine scar resection during cytoreductive surgery (CRS) for peritoneal metastases (PM). This study aimed to analyze the correlation between macroscopically suspected and microscopically confirmed scar metastases (SMs), and to analyze the prognostic impact of not undergoing routine scar resection.
methodAll patients with previous surgery, treated with CRS and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, for colorectal PM or pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP), at Uppsala University Hospital in 2013-2021, were included. Macroscopic SMs in surgical reports were compared with histopathological analyses.
resultsIn total, 227 patients were included. Among colorectal PM patients (n = 156), SM was macroscopically suspected in 41 (26%) patients, and 63 (40%) underwent scar resection. SM was confirmed in 19 (30%). Among patients with macroscopic suspicion, 45% had confirmed SM (positive predictive value, PPV). A total of 1 of 23 (4%) patients with no macroscopic suspicion had SM (negative predictive value, NPV = 96%). Among the PMP patients (n = 71), SM was macroscopically suspected in 13 (18%), and 28 (39%) underwent scar resection, of whom 12 (43%) had SM. The PPV was 77%. Occult SM was found in 1 of 14 (NPV = 93%). Not undergoing routine scar resection did not affect recurrence-free survival (RFS,
conclusionOccult SM is uncommon and scar resection does not affect RFS or OS. Therefore, macroscopically benign-appearing scars can be left without resection, though resection should be performed upon suspicion or uncertainty.
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.