Comparative effectiveness of primary tumor resection in patients with stage IV colon cancer

Cancer

Volumn 123, Issue 7, 2017, Pages 1124-1133

  Alawadi, Zeinab ^a,b   Phatak, Uma R ^a,b   Hu, Chung Yuan ^c   Bailey, Christina E ^c   You, Y Nancy ^c   Kao, Lillian S ^a,b   Massarweh, Nader N ^d   Feig, Barry W ^c   Rodriguez Bigas, Miguel A ^c   Skibber, John M ^c   Chang, George J ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

cancer; chemotherapy; colon; primary; resection; tumor

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CAUSE OF DEATH; COHORT ANALYSIS; COLON CANCER; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METASTATIC COLON CANCER; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROPENSITY SCORE; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT; ADOLESCENT; CANCER GRADING; COLONIC NEOPLASMS; HEALTH SURVEY; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; METASTASIS; MORTALITY; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; ONSET AGE; PATHOLOGY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; RISK FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE OF ONSET; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; COLONIC NEOPLASMS; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM METASTASIS; NEOPLASM STAGING; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RISK FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84994460566     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30230     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Statistics Center. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2016. Available at: https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/?_ga=1.75905685.183881736.1463405064#/. Accessed May 13, 2016.
2. Van Cutsem E, Nordlinger B, Cervantes A, Group ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Advanced colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for treatment. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(suppl 5):v93–v97.
3. Hu CY, Bailey CE, You YN, et al. Time trend analysis of primary tumor resection for stage IV colorectal cancer: less surgery, improved survival. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:245–251.
4. McCahill LE, Yothers G, Sharif S, et al. Primary mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab without resection of the primary tumor for patients presenting with surgically unresectable metastatic colon cancer and an intact asymptomatic colon cancer: definitive analysis of NSABP trial C-10. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3223–3228.
5. Ahmed S, Leis A, Fields A, et al. Survival impact of surgical resection of primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: results from a large population-based cohort study. Cancer. 2014;120:683–691.
6. Gresham G, Renouf DJ, Chan M, et al. Association between palliative resection of the primary tumor and overall survival in a population-based cohort of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Ann Surg. Oncol. 2014;21:3917–3923.
7. Clancy C, Burke JP, Barry M, Kalady MF, Calvin Coffey J. A meta-analysis to determine the effect of primary tumor resection for stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases on patient survival. Ann Surg. Oncol. 2014;21:3900–3908.
8. Duraker N, Civelek Caynak Z, Hot S. The impact of primary tumor resection on overall survival in patients with colorectal carcinoma and unresectable distant metastases: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2014;12:737–741.
9. Ishihara S, Hayama T, Yamada H, et al. Prognostic impact of primary tumor resection and lymph node dissection in stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastasis: a propensity score analysis in a multicenter retrospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:2949–2955.
10. Venderbosch S, de Wilt JH, Teerenstra S, et al. Prognostic value of resection of primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: retrospective analysis of 2 randomized studies and a review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3252–3260.
11. Ferrand F, Malka D, Bourredjem A, et al. Impact of primary tumour resection on survival of patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases treated by chemotherapy: results from the multicenter, randomised trial Federation Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive 9601. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:90–97.
12. Glesby MJ, Hoover DR. Survivor treatment selection bias in observational studies: examples from the AIDS literature. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:999–1005.
13. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA. 2007;297:278–285.
14. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.
15. Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:537–554.
16. The STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. Available at: http://www.strobe-statement.org. Accessed December 12, 2015.
17. Cirocchi R, Trastulli S, Abraha I, et al. Non-resection versus resection for an asymptomatic primary tumour in patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer [serial online]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD008997.
18. Iwashyna TJ, Kennedy EH. Instrumental variable analyses. Exploiting natural randomness to understand causal mechanisms. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2013;10:255–260.
19. Anderson JR, Cain KC, Gelber RD. Analysis of survival by tumor response. J Clin Oncol. 1983;1:710–719.
20. Garabedian LF, Chu P, Toh S, Zaslavsky AM, Soumerai SB. Potential bias of instrumental variable analyses for observational comparative effectiveness research. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:131–138.