Staged or simultaneous resection of synchronous liver metastases from colorectal cancer – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to estimate the differences in length of hospital stay, morbidity, mortality and long-term survival between staged and simultaneous resection of synchronous liver metastases from colorectal cancer to determine the level of evidence for recommendations of a treatment strategy. METHOD: A Pub-med search was undertaken for studies comparing patients with synchronous liver metastases, who either had a combined or staged resection of metastases. Twenty-six were considered and 16 were included based on Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. All studies were retrospective and had a general bias, because the staged procedure was significantly more often undertaken in patients with left-sided primary tumours and larger, more numerous and bi-lobar metastases. Analyses of primary outcomes were performed using the random effects model. RESULTS: For the reason of the heterogeneity of the observational studies, no odds ratios were calculated. In 11 studies, there was a tendency towards a shorter hospital stay in the synchronous resection group. Fourteen studies compared total perioperative morbidity and lower morbidity was observed in favour of a combined resection. Fifteen studies compared perioperative mortality, which seemed to be lower with the staged approach. Eleven studies compared 5-year survival, which seemed to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: No randomized controlled trials were identified, and hence a meta-analysis was not performed. The evidence level is II to III with grade C recommendations. Synchronous resections can be undertaken in selected patients, provided that surgeons specialized in colorectal and hepatobiliary surgery are available.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".