Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 657

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors

Open access
Taylor, Aliki, Primrose, Langeberg, Wendy, Kelsh, Mowat, Fionna, Alexander, Dominik, Choti, Michael, Poston, Graeme, Gena Kanas·2012·Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.2147/clep.s34285
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hepatic metastases develop in approximately 50% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases. We performed a review and meta-analysis to evaluate survival after resection of CRC liver metastases (CLMs) and estimated the summary effect for seven prognostic factors. METHODS: Studies published between 1999 and 2010, indexed on Medline, that reported survival after resection of CLMs, were reviewed. Meta-relative risks for survival by prognostic factor were calculated, stratified by study size and annual clinic volume. Cumulative meta-analysis results by annual clinic volume were plotted. RESULTS: Five- and 10-year survival ranged from 16% to 74% (median 38%) and 9% to 69% (median 26%), respectively, based on 60 studies. The overall summary median survival time was 3.6 (range: 1.7-7.3) years. Meta-relative risks (95% confidence intervals) by prognostic factor were: node positive primary, 1.6 (1.5-1.7); carcinoembryonic antigen level, 1.9 (1.1-3.2); extrahepatic disease, 1.9 (1.5-2.4); poor tumor grade, 1.9 (1.3-2.7); positive margin, 2.0 (1.7-2.5); >1 liver metastases, 1.6 (1.4-1.8); and >3 cm tumor diameter, 1.5 (1.3-1.8). Cumulative meta-analyses by annual clinic volume suggested improved survival with increasing volume. CONCLUSION: The overall median survival following CLM liver resection was 3.6 years. All seven investigated prognostic factors showed a modest but significant predictive relationship with survival, and certain prognostic factors may prove useful in determining optimal therapeutic options. Due to the increasing complexity of surgical interventions for CLM and the inclusion of patients with higher disease burdens, future studies should consider the potential for selection and referral bias on survival.

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 · 10.2147/clep.s34285

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 657

Metadata

Authors
Taylor, A., Primrose, Langeberg, W., Kelsh, Mowat, F., Alexander, D., Choti, M., Poston, G., & Kanas, G.
Venue
Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2012-11
Volume
4
Pages
283
ISSN
1179-1349 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2147/clep.s34285
OpenAlex
W2080229397
Cited by
657
References
94
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

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.