Outcomes of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) and Liver-Directed Therapy for Synchronous Peritoneal and Liver Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) can improve survival in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). The presence of synchronous liver metastases (LMs) often precludes patients from CRS/HIPEC; however, multiple studies suggest that CRS/HIPEC with liver-directed treatments may be beneficial. This systematic review examines outcomes and selection factors in CRC patients with PC and LM treated with CRS/HIPEC and liver-directed therapy. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases from 2009 to 2024. The outcomes included patient selection factors, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: A total of 482 articles were retrieved, of which 17 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 988 patients. Liver-directed therapy with CRS/HIPEC for PC and LM was associated with 3- and 5-year OS rates of 47% and 37%, respectively, with a median survival range of 15.3-47.6 months. The adjusted 1- and 3-year DFS rates were 34% and 23%, respectively, with a median DFS range of 6.2-29.4 months. Patients with PC and LM were more likely to have received preoperative systemic therapy (86%), undergone minor liver resection (90%), had a limited burden of LM (mean of three lesions, median size of 1.4-3 cm), and limited PC (mean peritoneal cancer index of 13). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that CRS/HIPEC with liver-directed therapy can yield favorable survival outcomes for well-selected CRC patients with limited PC and LM. Further trials are needed to confirm its efficacy and refine optimal patient selection.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".