ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
Colon and rectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: are we mixing apples with oranges? A propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rectal cancer is universally considered a different disease entity as compared to colon cancer, except when dealing with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), in which the two cancers are deemed as the same one. The present study aims to investigate the influence of primary tumor location (colon vs. rectum) on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Data from three referral centers undergoing CRS plus HIPEC for PC of colorectal origin were prospectively collected. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) according to primary tumor location (colic vs. rectal). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model first on the total number of patients. Then, a propensity score matching using the nearest-neighbour method with a 1:1 ratio was performed. The study included 167 patients: 126 colic and 41 rectal PC. After propensity score matching, rectal primary tumor location was independently predictive of a lower DFS (HR 1.91; 95%CI 1.06-3.45; p = 0.031) but not of a lower OS (HR 1.12; 95%CI 0.57-2.21; p = 0.73). Post-matching 3-year DFS rates were 49.2% (95%CI 34,3-70,5%) and 19.4% (95%CI 9,4-40,2%) for colic and rectal PC, respectively. The present study shows a significantly worse DFS for rectal cancer PC undergoing CRS and HIPEC compared to colon cancer PC, suggesting a possible need for dedicated pathways for rectal PC patients and posing a question for rectal PC to be considered as a unique disease entity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39827438What 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.