OBJECTIVE: The value of upfront primary tumor resection (PTR) for asymptomatic unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients remains contentious. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the prognostic significance of upfront PTR for asymptomatic unresectable mCRC.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on June 21st, 2024. To minimize the bias and ensure robust evidence, only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-matched studies (CMS) that compared PTR followed by chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone were included. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), while cancer-specific survival (CSS) served as the secondary outcome.
RESULTS: Eight studies (three RCTs and five CMS) involving 1221 patients were included. Compared to chemotherapy alone, upfront PTR followed by chemotherapy did not improve OS (hazard ratios [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.04, P = 0.17), but was associated with slightly better CSS (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.88, P = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: The current limited evidence indicates that upfront PTR does not improve OS but may enhance CSS in asymptomatic unresectable mCRC patients. Ongoing trials are expected to provide more reliable evidence on this issue.

UNASSIGNED: There is a controversy about whether surgery should proceed among metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) patients. A survival benefit was observed in mPC patients who underwent primary tumor resection; however, determining which patients would benefit from surgery is complex. For this purpose, we created a model to identify mPC patients who may benefit from primary tumor excision.
UNASSIGNED: Patients with mPC were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, and separated into surgery and nonsurgery groups based on whether the primary tumor was resected. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance confounding factors between the two groups. A nomogram was developed using multivariable logistic regression to estimate surgical benefit. Our model is evaluated using multiple methods.
UNASSIGNED: About 662 of 14,183 mPC patients had primary tumor surgery. Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the surgery group had a better prognosis. After PSM, a survival benefit was still observed in the surgery group. Among the surgery cohort, 202 patients survived longer than 4 months (surgery-beneficial group). The nomogram discriminated better in training and validation sets under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), and calibration curves were consistent. Decision curve analysis (DCA) revealed that it was clinically valuable. This model is better at identifying candidates for primary tumor excision.
UNASSIGNED: A helpful prediction model was developed and validated to identify ideal candidates who may benefit from primary tumor resection in mPC.

BACKGROUND: There exists continuous controversy regarding the benefit of primary tumor resection (PTR) for stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Little is known about how to predict the patients\' benefit from PTR. This study aimed to develop a tool for surgical benefit prediction.
METHODS: Stage IV CRC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database were included. Patients receiving PTR who survived longer than the median cancer-specific survival (CSS) time of those who did not undergo PTR were considered to benefit from surgery. Logistic regression analysis identified prognostic factors influencing surgical benefit, based on which a nomogram was constructed. The data of patients who underwent PTR from our institution was used for external validation. A user-friendly webserver was then built for convenient clinical use.
RESULTS: The median CSS of the PTR group was 23 months, significantly longer than that of the non-PTR group (7 months, P < 0.001). In the PTR group, 23.3% of patients did not benefit from surgery. Logistic regression analysis identified age, marital status, tumor location, CEA level, chemotherapy, metastasectomy, tumor size, tumor deposits, number of examined lymph nodes, N stage, histological grade and number of distant metastases as independently associated with surgical benefit. The established prognostic nomogram demonstrated satisfactory performance in both the internal and external validation.
CONCLUSIONS: PTR was associated with prolonged CSS in stage IV CRC. The proposed nomogram could be used as an evidenced-based platform for risk-to-benefit assessment to select appropriate patients for undergoing PTR.

BACKGROUND: Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) often exhibits aggressive growth with distant organ metastasis, leading to poor survival.
OBJECTIVE: The question of whether primary tumor resection (PTR) is beneficial for patients with metastatic MTC remains a subject of debate. In this study, we evaluated the prognostic significance of organ-specific metastases and the number of metastatic organs in these patients, and we also conducted an analysis to determine the therapeutic value of PTR in managing this rare malignancy.
METHODS: Patients initially diagnosed with metastatic MTC were identified within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were performed to identify survival predictors. Survival outcomes were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank tests.
RESULTS: A total of 186 patients with metastatic MTC at initial diagnosis from 2010 to 2020 were included. Bone, lung and liver were the most common metastatic organs. Patients with brain metastasis had significantly worse overall survival (OS) (p = 0.007) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) (p = 0.0013). Among all patients, 105 (56.45%) underwent PTR, and this group showed reduced overall mortality (OM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) (all p < 0.05). When analyzing different metastatic patterns, PTR significantly lowered the risk of OM and CSM for patients with bone, lung, liver, or distant lymph node (DLN) involvement (all p < 0.05). Additionally, among patients with one or two metastases, those undergoing surgical resection were significantly associated with favorable OS (p = 0.008) and CSS (p = 0.0247).
CONCLUSIONS: PTR may confer therapeutic benefits for carefully selected individuals with metastatic MTCs. To integrate these insights into clinical decision-making settings, it is imperative to undertake multicenter prospective studies in the future.

The implementation of primary tumor resection (PTR) in the treatment of kidney cancer patients (KC) with bone metastases (BM) has been controversial. This study aims to construct the first tool that can accurately predict the likelihood of PTR benefit in KC patients with BM (KCBM) and select the optimal surgical candidates. This study acquired data on all patients diagnosed with KCBM during 2010-2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to achieve balanced matching of PTR and non-PTR groups to eliminate selection bias and confounding factors. The median overall survival (OS) of the non-PTR group was used as the threshold to categorize the PTR group into PTR-beneficial and PTR-Nonbeneficial subgroups. Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival analysis was used for comparison of survival differences and median OS between groups. Risk factors associated with PTR-beneficial were identified using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC), area under the curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to validate the predictive performance and clinical utility of the nomogram. Ultimately, 1963 KCBM patients meeting screening criteria were recruited. Of these, 962 patients received PTR and the remaining 1061 patients did not receive PTR. After 1:1 PSM, there were 308 patients in both PTR and non-PTR groups. The K-M survival analysis results showed noteworthy survival disparities between PTR and non-PTR groups, both before and after PSM (p < 0.001). In the logistic regression results of the PTR group, histological type, T/N stage and lung metastasis were shown to be independent risk factors associated with PTR-beneficial. The web-based nomogram allows clinicians to enter risk variables directly and quickly obtain PTR beneficial probabilities. The validation results showed the excellent predictive performance and clinical utility of the nomograms for accurate screening of optimal surgical candidates for KCBM. This study constructed an easy-to-use nomogram based on conventional clinicopathologic variables to accurately select the optimal surgical candidates for KCBM patients.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (GI-NENs) often result in liver metastases, and the role of Primary Tumor Resection (PTR) in managing GI-NENs with liver metastases (GI-NENLM) is still debated. This study aimed to investigate the potential benefits of PTR in treating GI-NENLM by analyzing data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) and the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (FAH).
METHODS: The SEER Registry 17 database and the FAH clinical pathology database were used to collect clinicopathology data for GI-NENLM diagnosed between 2010 and 2019 and between 2011 and 2022, respectively. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match the clinicopathological characteristics of patients from both cohorts. Inverse probability weighting (IPTW) was used to weigh the PTR and non-PTR groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: After matching, 155 patients from the SEER database were matched to the FAH cohort. PTR was significantly associated with better prognosis in PSM-matched/unmatched SEER cohorts (P < 0.01) and in the FAH cohort even after eliminating selection bias using IPTW (p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis suggests that the cohort consisting of patients aged 55 years or older, individuals with colorectal primary tumors, those at the T1 disease stage, and those without extrahepatic metastasis may potentially benefit from PTR. Interaction analysis showed no significant interaction between PTR and other clinical and pathological factors except for age.
CONCLUSIONS: The employment of PTR in patients with GI-NENLM is significantly correlated with individual survival benefits. We support performing PTR on carefully evaluated patients.

The impact of surgical resection of primary (PTR) on the survival of breast cancer (BC) patients with bone metastasis (BM) has been preliminarily investigated, but it remains unclear which patients are suitable for this procedure. Finally, this study aims to develop a predictive model to screen BC patients with BM who would benefit from local surgery.
BC patients with BM were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010 and 2015), and 39 patients were obtained for external validation from an Asian medical center. According to the status of local surgery, patients were divided into Surgery and Non-surgery groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to reduce selection bias. Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival and Cox regression analyses were conducted before and after PSM to study the survival difference between the two groups. The survival outcome and treatment modality were also investigated in patients with different metastatic patterns. The logistic regression analyses were utilized to determine significant surgery-benefit-related predictors, develop a screening nomogram and its online version, and quantify the beneficial probability of local surgery for BC patients with BM. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the area under the curves (AUC), and calibration curves were plotted to evaluate the predictive performance and calibration of this model, whereas decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to assess its clinical usefulness.
This study included 5,625 eligible patients, of whom 2,133 (37.92%) received surgical resection of primary lesions. K-M survival analysis and Cox regression analysis demonstrated that local surgery was independently associated with better survival. Surgery provided significant survival benefits in most subgroups and metastatic patterns. After PSM, patients who received surgery had a longer survival time (OS: 46 months vs. 32 months, p < 0.001; CSS: 50 months vs. 34 months, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis determined six significant surgery-benefit-related variables: T stage, radiotherapy, race, liver metastasis, brain metastasis, and breast subtype. These factors were combined to establish the nomogram and a web probability calculator (https://sunshine1.shinyapps.io/DynNomapp/), with an AUC of 0.673 in the training cohort and an AUC of 0.640 in the validation cohort. The calibration curves exhibited excellent agreement. DCA indicated that the nomogram was clinically useful. Based on this model, surgery patients were assigned into two subsets: estimated sur-non-benefit and estimated sur-benefit. Patients in the estimated sur-benefit subset were associated with longer survival (median OS: 64 months vs. 33 months, P < 0.001). Besides, there was no difference in survival between the estimated sur-non-benefit subset and the non-surgery group.
Our study further confirmed the significance of local surgery in BC patients with BM and proposed a novel tool to identify optimal surgical candidates.

OBJECTIVE: It remains unclear whether primary tumor resection improves survival in patients with metastatic Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). Therefore, our study attempted to investigate the prognostic value of primary tumor resection on metastatic AEG.
METHODS: In total, 4200 patients diagnosed with metastatic AEG were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2015. Patients were categorized into two groups according to the performance of primary tumor resection. Pearson\'s chi-square test, Kaplan-Meier survival curve, and Cox regression analysis were conducted in this study. In addition, propensity-score matching was conducted to match 323 patients who received primary tumor resection and another 323 patients without.
RESULTS: Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that primary tumor resection was a significant prognostic factor in patients with metastatic AEG before matching. Moreover, in the matched cohort, metastatic AEG patients receiving primary tumor resection had significantly longer overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: .54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .46-.64, P < .001) and cancer-specific survival (HR: .53, 95% CI: .45-.63, P < .001). Subgroup analysis similarly revealed that primary tumor resection was significantly associated with better survival in most subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: The present population-based study identified that primary tumor resection led to significantly superior survival in patients with metastatic AEG. These findings are likely to contribute to the development of individualized therapy in metastatic AEG.

UNASSIGNED: Primary tumor resection (PTR) is the standard treatment for patients with primary malignant bone neoplasms (PMBNs). However, it remains unclear whether patients with advanced PMBNs still benefit from PTR. This study aimed to develop a prediction model to estimate the beneficial probability of PTR for this population.
UNASSIGNED: This study extracted data from patients diagnosed with advanced PMBNs, as recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, with the period from 2004 to 2015. The patient cohort was then bifurcated into two groups: those who underwent surgical procedures and the non-surgery group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to mitigate any confounding factors in the study. The survival rates of patients from both the surgical and non-surgery groups were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curves analysis. Moreover, the study used this method to assess the capacity of the nomogram to distinguish patients likely to derive benefits from surgical intervention. The study was grounded in the hypothesis that patients who underwent PTR and survived beyond the median overall survival (OS) time would potentially benefit from the surgery. Subsequently, logistic regression analysis was performed to ascertain significant predictors, facilitating the development of a nomogram. This nomogram was subjected to both internal and external validation using receiver operating characteristic curves, area under the curve analysis, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis.
UNASSIGNED: The SEER database provided a total of 839 eligible patients for the study, among which 536 (63.9%) underwent PTR. Following a 2:1 PSM analysis, patients were classified into two groups: 364 patients in the surgery group and 182 patients in the non-surgery group. Both K-M curves and multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that patients who received PTR had a longer survival duration, observed both before and after PSM. Crucial factors such as age, M stage, and tumor size were identified to be significantly correlated with surgical benefits in patients with advanced PMBNs. Subsequently, a nomogram was developed that uses these independent predictors. The validation of this predictive model confirmed its high accuracy and excellent discrimination ability of the nomogram to distinguish patients who would most likely benefit from surgical intervention.
UNASSIGNED: In this study, we devised a user-friendly nomogram to forecast the likehood of surgical benefits for patients diagnosed with advanced PMBNs. This tool facilitates the identification of the most suitable candidates for PTR, thus promoting more discerning and effective use of surgical intervention in this patient population.

BACKGROUND: Whether patients with asymptomatic primary tumors and unresectable metastases of colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo primary tumor resection (PTR) remains controversial. This study aims to determine the appropriateness of PTR for these individuals by evaluating a number of outcome measures.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. Outcome measures included overall survival, emergency surgery rates, incidence of postoperative complications, time to initiate chemotherapy, conversion rates, and chemotherapy-related toxicities.
RESULTS: Patients who received PTR in addition to chemotherapy had a better overall survival rate than those who only received chemotherapy (HR = 0.62, 95%CI, 0.50-0.78, I2 = 84%, p < 0.00001). In the RCT subgroup, there were no significant differences with a HR of 0.72 (95%CI, 0.45-1.13, I2 = 17%, p = 0.15). More patients in the chemotherapy alone group could be converted to resectable status (OR = 0.47, 95%CI, 0.27-0.82, I2 = 0%, p = 0.008), but the incidence of emergency surgery was 23% (95%CI, 17-29%, I2 = 14%). The risk of chemotherapy-related toxicity was not significantly higher in the PTR group (OR = 1.5, 95%CI, 0.94-2.43, p = 0.09, I2 = 0%), with a 7% incidence of postoperative complications (95%CI, 0-14%, p = 0.05, I2 = 0%). The time to initiate chemotherapy after PTR was approximately 33.06 days (95%CI, 25.55-40.58, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: PTR plus chemotherapy may be associated with improved survival in asymptomatic CRC patients with unresectable metastases. However, PTR did not provide a significant survival benefit in the subgroup of RCTs. Additionally, PTR did not result in a significantly increased risk of chemotherapy-related toxicity, with a postoperative complication rate of approximately 7%, and chemotherapy could be initiated at approximately 33.06 days after PTR. Compared with the PTR plus chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone could result in a significantly higher conversion rate. However, about 23% of patients receiving chemotherapy alone required emergency surgery for primary tumor-related symptoms. The above results needed to be validated in future larger prospective randomized trials.