ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Exploring the Upper Limit: The Added Value of Local Treatment in Patients with Multiple Colorectal Liver Metastases: An Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE)-Based Study.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Interventional therapeutic strategies for metastatic liver cancer].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePartial hepatectomy and thermal ablation are standard local treatments for patients with limited colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). However, as the number of metastases increases, the question arises whether local treatment is still biologically meaningful. This study evaluates the value of radical local treatment in patients with a higher number of CRLM and seeks to identify a potential threshold of diminishing benefit.
methodsData from the prospective AmCORE Registry were used. Patients with CRLM were divided into five groups: systemic therapy alone, and local treatment for solitary, 2-4, 5-9, and ≥ 10 CRLMs. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS); secondary outcome measures included local- and distant progression-free survival (LTPFS, DPFS), local control (LC), length of hospital stay, complication rates, and total tumour volume.
resultsLocal treatment significantly improved OS compared to systemic therapy alone (p < 0.001), with no evidence of a threshold of diminishing benefit. There were no differences in OS between the local treatment groups over a median FU of 52.9 months (95% CI, 44.0-61.8). Median OS for the systemic therapy group was 17.9 months (95% CI, 14.1-21.6). Local treatment offered favourable LTPFS and LC per-tumour for multiple CRLM. Length of hospital stay and complication rates increased with the number of treated CRLM. Median tumour volume increased with higher numbers of CRLMs but decreased in the ≥ 10 CRLMs group (p = 0.12).
conclusionNo upper limit was identified for the number of CRLMs treated with curative intent resection and/or ablation. This study supports the safety and efficacy of local treatment for patients with high numbers of CRLMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41184459What 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.