4.7 Review

Definition of Patients Presenting a High Risk of Developing Peritoneal Carcinomatosis After Curative Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 183-192

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2473-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In colorectal cancer, complete cytoreductive surgery associated with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy achieves encouraging results in early peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), but this early detection can only be accurately accomplished during a systematic second-look surgery. This costly and invasive approach can only be proposed to selected patients. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors predictive of developing PC after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. After a systematic review of the literature published between 1940 and 2011, all clinical studies reporting the incidence of PC after curative surgery for colorectal cancer were searched for factors associated with the primary tumor that were likely to influence the incidence of recurrent PC. Sixteen clinical studies were considered informative, all nonrandomized, three prospective and 13 retrospective, including 4-395 patients. Overall, the methodological quality of the reported studies was low. Data were available for the following factors: synchronous PC, synchronous ovarian metastases, perforated primary tumor, serosal and/or adjacent organ invasion, histological subtype, and positive peritoneal cytology with reported incidences of recurrent PC between 8 and 75 %. No study was found that mentioned an impact of lymph node invasion, tumor location, laparoscopy, occlusive tumors, or bleeding tumor on recurrent PC. Evidence regarding the incidence of recurrent PC after curative surgery for colorectal cancer is poor. Emerging data indicate three situations that could result in a real higher risk of recurrent PC: synchronous PC, synchronous isolated ovarian metastases, and a perforated primary tumor.

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

4.7
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