ArticleOncology letters2025
Comparative survival outcome of synchronous and metachronous brain metastasis from colorectal cancer: A meta‑analysis.
Article in Oncology letters, 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.
- Colorectal cancer metastasis to the brain: A scoping review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Synchronous and metachronous brain metastases (BM) are increasingly recognized in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess whether the timing of BM development affects survival outcomes by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, Embase and MEDLINE databases was performed, covering studies from January 1900 to December 2023. To compare survival outcomes between synchronous and metachronous BM, hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) were extracted from the included studies and pooled using a random-effects model. The systematic review included nine retrospective cohort studies comprising 910 patients with BM from CRC. Meta-analysis results showed no significant difference in OS between patients with synchronous and metachronous BM (HR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.38; P=0.63). In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that the timing of BM development does not impact OS in patients with BM from CRC.
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.