ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
Prognostic impact of metastatic sites and its metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis from a single institution.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Differential prognostic impact of liver resection by the site of concurrent extrahepatic diseases in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases: a nationwide multicenter study (correspondence).International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Correspondence for the article titled - "Prognostic impact of metastatic sites and its metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis from a single institution".International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate the prognostic influence of different metastatic sites and the effect of surgical resection on survival. Additionally, it explores how anatomical location influences prognosis before and after metastasectomy.
methodsThis retrospective study included 999 mCRC patients treated at Taipei Veterans General Hospital from 2013 to 2019. Survival outcomes across liver, lung, peritoneal, and distant lymph node (LN) metastases were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models.
resultsPrognosis varied significantly by metastatic site. For single-site metastases, distant LN metastases had the longest OS (36.8 months), followed by lung (35.5 months), liver (26.5 months), and peritoneal metastases (21.5 months; p = 0.001). Lung metastases showed the longest PFS (11.7 months), followed by distant LN (10.8 months), peritoneal (9.8 months), and liver (9.1 months; p = 0.031). Surgical resection significantly improved OS (HR = 0.477, p < 0.001). With metastasectomy, OS was comparable for liver, lung, and distant LN metastases (p = 0.288), while peritoneal metastases had significantly poorer outcomes (HR = 2.208, p = 0.001). In patients without surgery, OS was significantly poorer across all metastatic sites, with lung metastases demonstrating the most favorable prognosis (OS = 31.9 months) and statistically significant differences compared to liver, peritoneal, and distant LN metastases (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe prognosis of mCRC varies by metastatic site. Surgical resection significantly improves survival for liver, lung, and distant LN metastases but is less effective for peritoneal metastases. Surgery reduces the prognostic disparity among resectable sites except for peritoneal seeding.
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.