Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 215

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Late results justify resection for multiple hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer

Rees, M., Plant, G., Bygrave, S.·1997·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whilst hepatic resection is accepted for single colorectal metastases, the role of surgery for multiple deposits is less certain. This study reports results of a programme of aggressive resection of hepatic metastases. METHODS: Of 150 hepatic resections for colorectal metastases, 107 patients have completed 1-9 years' follow-up for this actuarial survival analysis. Indications for resection were disease confined to the liver, resectability of all metastases and preservation of sufficient hepatic parenchyma. RESULTS: One patient (1 per cent) died after operation and six (6 per cent) suffered serious complications (two surgical and four medical) but with full recovery. Patients who had a radical resection (n = 89) had 1- and 5-year survival rates of 94 and 37 per cent respectively. A palliative group (n = 18) with disease elsewhere (n = 9) or positive histological margins (n = 9) had corresponding survival rates of 56 and 6 per cent. Univariate analysis of the group who had radical surgery demonstrated that survival depended on size of metastases (less than 7 cm) (P = 0.014), width of clear resection margin (greater than 5 mm) (P = 0.004) and primary site (P = 0.010). Factors not affecting outcome were number of metastases, unilateral versus bilateral disease, synchronous versus metachronous spread, tumour differentiation and Dukes stage. Multivariate analysis demonstrated independent survival advantage for small metastases (less than 7 cm) (P = 0.002) and clear resection margin greater than 5 mm (P = 0.037). CONCLUSION: Hepatic resection in selected patients with single and multiple colorectal hepatic metastases is justified.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.1800840828

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 215

Metadata

Authors
Rees, M., Plant, G., & Bygrave, S.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
1997-08
Volume
84
Issue
8
Pages
1136-1140
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2064412261
Cited by
215
References
0
FWCI
4.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Late results justify resection for multiple hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.1800840828
The paper
Rees, M., Plant, G., & Bygrave, S. (1997). Late results justify resection for multiple hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800840828

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.