ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Repeat Cytoreductive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Metastatic to the Peritoneal Cavity.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. 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.
- Reinterpreting the ORCHESTRA Trial from a Surgical Oncology Perspective.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Role of Repeat Cytoreductive Surgery for Patients with Recurrent Colorectal-Cancer-Related Peritoneal Metastases.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionColorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. 5-15% of CRC patients develop peritoneal metastases (PM), and those with PM have poor prognosis. For patients with new CRC-related PM, surgical treatment, including cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with/without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been shown to improve survival compared with systemic therapy alone; however, little is known about the benefits of re-do CRS for recurrent PM.
methodsAll CRC patients who underwent CRS with/without HIPEC (2008-2023) were retrospectively identified at one major referral center. Clinicodemographic variables were extracted by chart review. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), peritoneal disease-free survival (PDFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsOverall, 139 patients underwent one or more CRS procedures and were included in this study, with 56 patients undergoing two CRS procedures and 15 undergoing three or more CRS procedures. Median age was 50 years. 113 (81%) patients experienced recurrence after their first CRS (CRS1) compared with 45 (80%) after the second CRS (CRS2) and 13 (87%) after the third CRS (CRS3), with most patients experiencing peritoneal recurrence (73% after CRS1, 75% after CRS2, 67% after CRS3). RFS and PDFS were similar after CRS1 and CRS2 (p = 0.17 and p = 0.34, respectively). Patients who underwent a 'targeted' rather than 'complete' index CRS experienced shortened PDFS (p < 0.01) but equivalent OS (p = 0.84).
conclusionsRFS/PDFS following CRS1 is largely predictive of RFS/PDFS after CRS2, with a small number of patients experiencing long-term RFS/PDFS after CRS2. Re-do CRS should be considered for appropriately selected patients with CRC-related PM.
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.