Should Noncurative Resection of the Primary Tumour Be Performed in Patients with Stage iv Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surgical resection of the primary tumour in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (crc) remains controversial. This review compares survival in patients with advanced crc who underwent surgical resection of the primary tumour with that in patients not undergoing resection, and determines rates of post-operative mortality and nonfatal complications, the primary tumour complication rate, the non-resection surgical procedures rate, and quality of life (qol). METHODS: Reports in the central, medline, and embase databases were searched for relevant studies, which were selected using pre-specified eligibility criteria. The search was also restricted to publication dates from 1980 onward, the English language, and studies involving human subjects. Screening, evaluation of relevant articles, and data abstraction were performed in duplicate, and agreement between the abstractors was assessed. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were collected and synthesized per protocol. RESULTS: From among the 3379 reports located, fifteen retrospective observational studies were selected. Of the 12,416 patients in the selected studies, 8620 (69%) underwent surgery. Median survival was 15.2 months (range: 10-30.7 months) in the resection group and 11.4 months (range: 3-22 months) in the non-resection group. Hazard ratio for survival was 0.69 [95% confidence interval (ci): 0.61 to 0.79] favouring surgical resection. Mean rates of postoperative mortality and nonfatal complications were 4.9% (95% ci: 0% to 9.7%) and 25.9% (95%ci: 20.1% to 31.6%) respectively. The mean primary tumour complication rate was 29.7% (95% ci: 18.5% to 41.0%), and the non-resection surgical procedures rate in the non-resection group was 27.6% (95 ci: 15.4% to 39.9%). No study provided qol data. CONCLUSIONS: Although this review supports primary tumour resection in advanced crc, the results have significant biases. Randomized trials are warranted to confirm the findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".