4.5 Article

Palliative Surgery in Patients With Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 109, 期 3, 页码 239-244

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jso.23480

关键词

Colorectal adenocarcinomas; surgical treatment; survival; propensity score matching

资金

  1. Asan Institute for Life Sciences [2013-069, 9-490]
  2. Korea Health 21 RD Project [A062254]
  3. Center for Development and Commercialization of Anti-Cancer Therapeutics [A102059]
  4. Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and ObjectivesThe current study was primarily intended to determine the best surgical treatment for patients with unresectable liver metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). In addition, we assessed whether the improvement in survival resulting from palliative resection (PR) of the primary tumor was a function of the extent of liver metastasis. MethodsThe demographics, tumor characteristics, and survival outcomes of 261 patients who underwent palliative surgery for unresectable liver metastatic CRC were analyzed. A propensity-score model was used to compare the group of patients receiving PR and non-resection (NR). ResultsThere were 195 PR patients and 66 NR. The median survival of PR and NR patients was 21 months and 10 months, respectively (P<0.001). In a Cox multivariate analysis of 51 propensity-score matched pairs, PR resulted in longer survival than NR (Hazard Ratio for NR 1.481; 95% confidence interval: 1.003-2.185; P=0.048). The extent of liver metastasis only led to better survival of PR than NR patients among patients with limited liver metastasis not among those with extensive liver metastasis (P=0.001). ConclusionsPR appears to result in better survival than NR when the patient's overall condition permits an aggressive approach, especially in patients with limited liver metastases. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014 109:239-244. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据