SynthesisJournal of surgical oncology2026
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Resection Sequence in Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastasis: Primary vs. Liver First.
Synthesis in Journal of surgical oncology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal first (CRf) versus liver first (Lf) resections with synchronous colorectal liver metastases. METHODOLOGY: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Central trials register, and Google Scholar databases. This was conducted in line with current PRISMA guidelines. 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the primary endpoints and odds ratios for secondary endpoints. The Cochrane Q test and the measurement of inconsistency test were used to assess the degree of heterogeneity among the included studies.
resultsFifteen studies were included with a total of 8611 patients from 2010 to 2025. A statistically significant survival benefit was seen in the overall 1-year survival of the CRf group compared to the Lf group, with no significant difference in 3- and 5-year follow-up. In addition, a statistically significant benefit in 1-, 3-, and 5- year DFS rates was seen in the CRf group when compared to the Lf group. No significant difference was seen in major morbidity and 90-day mortality, and failure to proceed to the second resection stage.
conclusionDFS was significantly increased in the CRf group compared to the Lf group, with no difference in secondary outcomes. One-year OS was also found to be higher in the CRf group; however, this finding likely reflects the heterogeneity of the included studies and perioperative course after hepatic resections. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to demonstrate such a significant difference of one strategy over the other. However, caution should be used in the interpretation of these results due to the lack of available randomized control trials.
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.