SynthesisThe oncologist2025
Risk of peritoneal metastasis following minimally invasive colectomy for locally advanced colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The oncologist, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLocally advanced (T4) colon cancer is a significant risk factor for peritoneal metastasis (PM). Although laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is considered oncologically safe, the risk of PM in patients with T4 disease undergoing LC remains unclear. Prior systematic reviews demonstrated equivalent overall survival between LC and open colectomy (OC). However, comparison of LC and OC for peritoneal recurrence is lacking.
methodsA systematic review, conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, identified 247 abstracts, of which 46 full texts were reviewed. Studies including both LC and OC that reported peritoneal recurrence were included. Case reports and conference abstracts were excluded. Pooled effect size for proportion of, and hazard ratio (HR) for, peritoneal recurrence were calculated using a random-effects model with inverse variance weighting.
resultsNine studies met inclusion criteria. All were retrospective cohort studies; most considered "conversion to open" as laparoscopic procedures. Pooled odds ratio was 1.61 (P = .011, I2 = 0.62), and HR was 1.24 (P < .001, I2 = 0.10) for developing peritoneal metastases. Risk of bias was assessed as low or moderate for all studies. Quality of evidence was low.
conclusionsLaparoscopic colectomy is associated with an increased risk of peritoneal recurrence compared with open colectomy for T4 colon cancer. Although selection bias in these nonrandomized studies should favor laparoscopic surgery, LC was associated with an increased risk of peritoneal recurrence. LC should be approached with caution for cT4 colon cancer. Strategies to mitigate the risk of peritoneal recurrence in T4 colon cancer, such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy or adjuvant intraperitoneal chemotherapy, should be further explored in prospective studies.
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.