SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparative outcomes of combined thermal ablation and liver resection versus liver resection alone for multiple colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thermal Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Current Evidence and Future Horizons.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- [Current evidence on intraoperative ultrasound : A position paper of the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM)].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Radiofrequency ablation for colorectal liver metastases: an evolving alternative or complement to resection?Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) continues to pose a significant clinical challenge, with surgical resection remaining the gold standard. However, the efficacy of combining thermal ablation (TA) with liver resection (LR) compared to LR alone in managing multifocal CRLM remains a topic of debate. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of combining TA and LR with LR alone in patients with multifocal CRLM. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to December 2024. Studies that compared the combination of TA and LR with LR alone in patients with CRLM and reported at least 1-, 2-, or 3-year overall survival (OS) and/or disease-free survival (DFS) were included. Data were extracted and analyzed using random-effects or fixed-effects models, depending on the degree of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis and assessment of publication bias were performed to ensure the robustness of the findings. Results: Six retrospective cohort studies involving 3084 patients (1286 in the TA+LR group and 1798 in the LR group) were included. No significant differences were found in 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS between the TA+LR and LR groups. However, the TA+LR group exhibited worse DFS. Subgroup analysis revealed a more pronounced decline in DFS in non-European TA+LR cohorts compared to LR cohorts, potentially reflecting regional differences. Additionally, DFS was significantly lower in the radiofrequency ablation (RFA) subgroup compared to the microwave ablation (MWA) subgroup. Complication rates were comparable between the two groups. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the results, and no significant publication bias was detected. Conclusion: Combining thermal ablation with liver resection is a feasible liver-sparing approach for treating extensive CRLM, applicable through both laparoscopic and open surgical techniques. Combined resection and ablation should be considered as an alternative to resection alone for patients with multiple metastases. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024629343.
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.