ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2025
Primary tumor resection
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The selection of primary tumor resection (PTR) Methods: The analysis included 137 patients with obstructive, unresectable stage IV CRC who underwent PTR or attempted SEMS placement. The primary objective was to assess the OS of patients, specifically examining how PTR and SEMS interventions influence these survival outcomes. Results: In a cohort of 137 patients with obstructive, unresectable stage IV CRC, 30 initially opted for PTR, while stent placement was attempted in 107 cases. Following 14 stent failures, which resulted in 8 diversions and 6 additional PTR interventions, exclusions due to elective surgeries led to a final analysis of 36 PTR and 72 SEMS cases. Cox regression analysis identified no significant survival advantage between PTR and SEMS interventions (hazard ratio [HR], 0.848; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.555-1.298; P = 0.449). Critical findings highlighted that the absence of chemotherapy markedly reduced survival prospects (HR, 1.963; 95% CI, 1.200-3.211; P = 0.007). These insights were substantiated through propensity score matching. Conclusion: The comparative analysis reveals that neither PTR nor SEMS offers a definitive survival advantage in managing obstructive, unresectable stage IV CRC. However, the necessity for subsequent invasive interventions is notably lower in the PTR group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.