Pfannschmidt To assess the 20 studies included Study inclusion criteria Overall 5-year survival: Authors concluded there is a MODERATE QUALITY et al (2007) ** published evidence (2,320 patients) substantial body of evidence from Studies on patients who underwent All studies reported overall survival of 1. Was an ‘a priori’ design for the efficacy of retrospective case series surgical resection with curative intent 5 years for all patients undergoing provided? YES pulmonary demonstrating that resection of for colorectal pulmonary metastases. resection of pulmonary metastases Publication date 2. Duplicate study metastasectomy in colorectal pulmonary metastases Patients who underwent repeat (median: 48%, range: 41.1–56%) range of included selection and data patients with can be performed safely with a pulmonary resection and hepatic and studies: 1999–2006 extraction? CANNOT colorectal cancer low mortality rate. For a subset of pulmonary metastases resection ANSWER highly selected patients the were also included. 3. Comprehensive overall 5-year actuarial survival (population 2) Prospective and retrospective studies literature search? YES rates ranged between 38.3% and reporting the outcome of surgical 63.7% which the authors reported 4. Publication status (i.e. resection with curative intent of as being comparable with surgical grey literature) used as an colorectal pulmonary metastases. resection for colorectal liver inclusion criterion? NO Restricted to studies published metastases. 5. List of studies between 1995 and December 2006. provided? NO Other criteria included at least 40 patients in the study, at least 30 days 6. Characteristics of the of follow-up after the operation for included studies postoperative morbidity and mortality provided? YES and at least 24 months for inclusion 7. Scientific quality of the of survival data. English articles included studies included. assessed? NO 8. Scientific quality of the Study exclusion criteria included studies used in conclusions? NO NR 9. Methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? N/A 10. Publication bias assessed? N/A 11. Conflict of interest stated? NO
Pfannschmidt et al (2007) ** To assess the published evidence for the efficacy of pulmonary metastasectomy in patients with colorectal cancer (population 2) 20 studies included (2,320 patients) Publication date range of included studies: 1999–2006 Study inclusion criteria Studies on patients who underwent surgical resection with curative intent for colorectal pulmonary metastases. Patients who underwent repeat pulmonary resection and hepatic and pulmonary metastases resection were also included. Prospective and retrospective studies reporting the outcome of surgical resection with curative intent of colorectal pulmonary metastases. Restricted to studies published between 1995 and December 2006. Other criteria included at least 40 patients in the study, at least 30 days of follow-up after the operation for postoperative morbidity and mortality and at least 24 months for inclusion of survival data. English articles included. Study exclusion criteria NR Overall 5-year survival: All studies reported overall survival of 5 years for all patients undergoing resection of pulmonary metastases (median: 48%, range: 41.1–56%) Authors concluded there is a substantial body of evidence from retrospective case series demonstrating that resection of colorectal pulmonary metastases can be performed safely with a low mortality rate. For a subset of highly selected patients the overall 5-year actuarial survival rates ranged between 38.3% and 63.7% which the authors reported as being comparable with surgical resection for colorectal liver metastases. MODERATE QUALITY 1. Was an ‘a priori’ design provided? YES 2. Duplicate study selection and data extraction? CANNOT ANSWER 3. Comprehensive literature search? YES 4. Publication status (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? NO 5. List of studies provided? NO 6. Characteristics of the included studies provided? YES 7. Scientific quality of the included studies assessed? NO 8. Scientific quality of the included studies used in conclusions? NO 9. Methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? N/A 10. Publication bias assessed? N/A 11. Conflict of interest stated? NO
1403%20-%20Final%20Contracted%20Assessment%20Report%20(ACCESSIBLE).docx