Effect of primary tumor resection on survival in patients with asymptomatic unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It remains controversial whether primary tumor resection (PTR) improves survival in patients with asymptomatic, unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the latest evidence on clinical outcomes. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for eligible studies published between database inception and May 2022. RevMan 5.4 and Stata 16.0 were used for the meta-analysis. A total of nine studies were included, including four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five retrospective cohort studies. Meta-analysis showed that overall survival (OS) [HR = 0.89, 95%CI (0.74, 1.06), P = 0.19] and progression-free survival (PFS) [HR = 0.87, 95%CI (0.71, 1.06), P = 0.17] were not significantly different between the PTR and non-PTR groups. In the subgroup analysis, all subgroups showed no significant difference in OS between the two groups. PTR may not provide additional survival benefits over chemotherapy in asymptomatic, unresectable mCRC patients. However, in view of the limitations of this study, more well-designed RCTs are needed to validate our conclusions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".