Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/10284
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMetcalfe, M.-
dc.contributor.authorMullin, E.-
dc.contributor.authorMaddern, G.-
dc.date.issued2004-
dc.identifier.citationArchives of Surgery, 2004; 139(7):749-754-
dc.identifier.issn0004-0010-
dc.identifier.issn1538-3644-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/10284-
dc.description.abstractHypothesis: By review of a reported series, is outcome related to surveillance after hepatectomy? Design: We reviewed English-language literature indexed on MEDLINE from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2002. Indexing terms were combinations of hepatectomy, colorectal metastases, and recurrence with prognostic, repeat, follow-up, or surveillance. Study Selection: Studies containing any of the following data fields were included: recurrence after hepatectomy, rates of repeat hepatectomy, 5-year survival (overall or disease free) after hepatectomy (initial or repeat), posthepatectomy surveillance protocol, and detection of recurrence by surveillance modality. Data Extraction: Data were taken directly from a small number of articles and pooled across studies for analysis. We highlighted difficulties in assessing data quality and validity as a caveat to the interpretation of the results. Results: The rate of recurrence after hepatectomy was 58%, and the rate of hepatic recurrence was 30%. Repeat hepatectomy was performed in 9.6% of cases. Five-year survivals after initial and repeat hepatectomy were 29% and 38%, respectively. Many studies did not report their surveillance protocols. For those that did, computed tomography or ultrasonography with carcinoembryonic antigen measurement most commonly formed the basis of surveillance. No data related surveillance techniques to the outcomes of recurrence detection, repeat hepatectomy, or survival. Conclusions: This review confirmed the value of repeat hepatectomy for recurrent disease, but uncovered no direct evidence supporting any surveillance modalities. Further studies are clearly needed, and approaches to these are discussed.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityMatthew S. Metcalfe, Emma J. Mullin and Guy J. Maddern-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherAmer Medical Assoc-
dc.rights© American Medical Association-
dc.source.urihttp://archsurg.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/139/7/749-
dc.subjectHumans-
dc.subjectColorectal Neoplasms-
dc.subjectLiver Neoplasms-
dc.subjectNeoplasm Recurrence, Local-
dc.subjectCarcinoembryonic Antigen-
dc.subjectPrognosis-
dc.subjectClinical Protocols-
dc.subjectHepatectomy-
dc.subjectReoperation-
dc.subjectContinuity of Patient Care-
dc.titleChoice of surveillance after hepatectomy for colorectal metastases-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1001/archsurg.139.7.749-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidMaddern, G. [0000-0003-2064-181X]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 2
Surgery publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.