4.5 Article

The effect of a simultaneous versus a staged resection of metastatic colorectal cancer on time to adjuvant chemotherapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 118, Issue 1, Pages 86-94

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.25122

Keywords

adjuvant therapy; chemotherapy; colorectal cancer; simultaneous resection; surgical approach

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives: Patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases may undergo a staged or a simultaneous resection. This study aimed to determine whether the time to adjuvant chemotherapy was delayed in patients undergoing a simultaneous resection. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2005 and 2016. The primary outcome was time to adjuvant chemotherapy. A multivariate linear regression was conducted to ascertain the adjusted effect of a simultaneous versus a staged approach on time to adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: A total of 155 patients were included. A total of 127 patients underwent a staged resection, whereas 28 patients underwent a simultaneous resection. Age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class as well tumor, node, metastasis stage, tumor location, and number and size of metastases were not significantly different between the groups. The median time to adjuvant chemotherapy was 70 and 63 days for the staged and simultaneous groups, respectively (P = .27). Multivariate analysis did not demonstrate an increased propensity for prolonged time to chemotherapy after simultaneous resection (rate ratio: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.71-1.32, P = .84). There were no significant differences in the length of stay, complications, overall survival, and disease-free survival between the groups (P > .05). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that simultaneous resection does not result in significant delay of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with a staged approach.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available