可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗加手术对比单纯手术的疗效及安全性Meta分析

目的 系统评价可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗+手术与单纯手术模式的有效性及安全性差异。方法 计算机检索Embase、Pubmed、Web of Science、Cochrane library、万方、中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库等,查找辅助同步放化疗联合手术对比单纯手术治疗可切除食管鳞癌的临床随机对照研究文献。使用Revman 5.3统计软件对生存资料、R0切除率、术后并发症发生率及治疗期间死亡率进行Meta分析。结果 最终纳入11个临床随机对照研究文献,共计1450例患者。结果显示新辅助同步放化疗+手术组有更高的2、5年总生存率(RR=1.14,95%CI为1.05~1.23,P=0.00)和2、5年无进展生存率(RR=1.56,95%CI为1.05~2.32,P=0.03);提高了R0切除率(RR=1.10,95%CI为1.05~1.14,P=0.00),术后心律失常发生率也较高(RR=2.45,95%CI为1.37~4.38,P=0.00)。两组术后并发症总发生率和治疗期间死亡率均相近(RR=1.12,95%CI为0.79~1.59,P=0.51和RR=1.78,95%CI为0.90~3.52,P=0.10)。结论 可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗+手术较单纯手术带来更多生存获益,并未明显增加不良反应发生率,是治疗可切除食管鳞癌的一种可选方案。     

可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗加手术对比单纯手术的疗效及安全性Meta分析

目的 系统评价可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗+手术与单纯手术模式的有效性及安全性差异。方法 计算机检索Embase、Pubmed、Web of Science、Cochrane library、万方、中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库等,查找辅助同步放化疗联合手术对比单纯手术治疗可切除食管鳞癌的临床随机对照研究文献。使用Revman 5.3统计软件对生存资料、R0切除率、术后并发症发生率及治疗期间死亡率进行Meta分析。结果 最终纳入11个临床随机对照研究文献,共计1450例患者。结果显示新辅助同步放化疗+手术组有更高的2、5年总生存率(RR=1.14,95%CI为1.05~1.23,P=0.00)和2、5年无进展生存率(RR=1.56,95%CI为1.05~2.32,P=0.03);提高了R0切除率(RR=1.10,95%CI为1.05~1.14,P=0.00),术后心律失常发生率也较高(RR=2.45,95%CI为1.37~4.38,P=0.00)。两组术后并发症总发生率和治疗期间死亡率均相近(RR=1.12,95%CI为0.79~1.59,P=0.51和RR=1.78,95%CI为0.90~3.52,P=0.10)。结论 可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗+手术较单纯手术带来更多生存获益,并未明显增加不良反应发生率,是治疗可切除食管鳞癌的一种可选方案。     

食管癌放化疗后复发再程放疗的Meta分析

目的 Meta分析食管癌放化疗后复发再程放疗与其他疗法疗效和不良反应。方法 通过计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、CNKI、万方等数据库,搜集有关食管癌放化疗后复发再程放疗与其他治疗方法比较的临床对照研究。检索时间为建库至 2020年4月。采用RevMan 5.1软件进行分析,组间差异采用RR及 95%CI描述。结果 根据纳入排除标准最终纳入11篇文献,包括 842例患者。Meta分析结果显示再程放疗组与手术组相比总生存率略低(RR=0.40,95%CI为 0.27~0.61,P<0.001),与单纯化疗组相比则得到了提高(RR=2.91,95%CI为 1.43~5.95,P=0.003)。再程放疗组与手术组治疗相关死亡率相近(RR=0.53,95%CI为 0.14~1.98,P=0.350),但手术组发生率较高(1.7%~11.4%∶1.9%~2.8%)。结论 再程放疗是放化疗后复发食管癌的有效治疗手段,可作为临床患者的选择方案。     

可切除食管鳞癌新辅助放化疗的Meta分析

目的:评价术前放化疗联合手术治疗(neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery,CRT+S)与单纯手术治疗(surgery,S)对可切除食管鳞癌患者生存及手术的影响。方法:检索PubMed系统中所有CRT+S与S治疗可切除食管鳞癌的随机对照研究(randomized controlled trial,RCT),应用RevMan 5.2软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入10篇文献。CRT+S与S组比较:1)患者1年生存率差异无统计学意义,RR=1.03,95%CI为0.96～1.10,P=0.37。2)CRT+S组提高了3、5年生存率,3年RR=1.32,95%CI为1.17～1.50,P<0.001;5年RR=1.24,95%CI为1.03～1.49,P=0.02。3)相比于S组,CRT+S组的手术率较低,RR=0.84,95%CI为0.72～0.99,P=0.04;术后并发症的发生率较高,RR=1.25,95%CI为1.02～1.53,P=0.03;死亡率也较高,RR=2.34,95%CI为1.37～3.99,P=0.002;但提高了R0切除率,RR=1.18,95%CI为1.06～1.32,P=0.002。4)术后局部复发率差异无统计学意义,RR=0.82,95%CI为0.31～2.16,P=0.68;术后远处转移率差异无统计学意义,RR=0.86,95%CI为0.60～1.22,P=0.39。结论:CRT+S治疗明显提高了可切除食管鳞癌患者的长期生存率及R0切除率。     

胃癌术后放化疗与单纯化疗随机对照试验结果的荟萃分析

目的 采用偱证医学荟萃分析的方法比较胃癌术后放化疗与单纯化疗的RCT结果差异。 方法 检索中国期刊全文数据库、维普、中国生物医学文献数据库,Cochrane图书馆、PubMed和EMBASE,纳入胃癌术后放化疗及单纯化疗的RCT研究。汇总数据采用RevMan5.2及Stata12软件进行分析。两组间差异采用RR及95%CI描述。 结果 根据纳入和排除标准,最终纳入11个1 143例患者的RCT资料。荟萃分析结果显示胃癌术后放化疗比单纯化疗的1、2、3年OS率高（RR=1.20,95%CI=1.10～1.30,P=0.00;RR=1.34,95%CI=1.16～1.56,P=0.00;RR=2.62,95%CI=1.72～3.97,P=0.00）;3、5年PFS率也高（RR=1.10,95%CI=1.00～1.21,P=0.04;RR=1.27,95%CI=1.02～1.60,P=0.04)。胃肠道反应、肝功能损害、骨髓移植及手足综合征等3~4级发生率低且两组相似（P=0.03~0.78）。结论 胃癌术后放化疗可提高生存时间,且患者对药物的耐受性尚可。     

新辅助治疗与前期手术在可切除胰腺癌比较的Meta分析

[目的]比较新辅助治疗(neoadjuvant therapy,NAT)和前期手术在可切除胰腺癌(resectable pancreatic cancer,RPC)中的临床差异。[方法]计算机检索Pubmed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane数据库,纳入未进行新辅助治疗直接进行手术切除(前期手术组)和接受新辅助治疗后进行手术切除(NAT组)的可切除胰腺癌患者。根据异质性选择随机效应模型或固定效应模型计算文献合并的比值比(odds ratio,OR)与危险比(hazard ratio,HR)及其95%可信区间(95%confidence interval,95%Cl)。在没有提供HR的文献中,从文中提供的生存曲线提取HR及其95%CI,同时使用漏斗图与Egger’s检验的方法评估发表偏倚。[结果]共纳入11项研究,9386例患者。在所纳入的患者中,有2508例(26.7%)接受了NAT治疗。与前期手术相比,NAT可提高RPC患者的R0切除率(OR=1.89,95%CI:1.26~2.83),同时降低淋巴结阳性率(OR=0.34,95%CI:0.31~0.37)。但接受NAT的RPC患者的总生存(overall survival,OS)时间未显著增加(HR=0.93,95%CI:0.83~1.04)。[结论]在RPC患者中,NAT组的R0切除率和淋巴结阳性率均优于前期手术患者。     

ⅠB2-ⅡB期宫颈癌新辅助治疗联合手术对比根治性同步放化疗疗效及安全性的Meta分析

目的 系统评价ⅠB2-ⅡB期宫颈癌新辅助治疗联合手术与根治性同步放化疗模式有效性及安全性差异。方法 计算机检索Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方、中国知网和维普等数据库,查找新辅助治疗联合手术对比根治性同步放化疗ⅠB2-ⅡB期宫颈癌临床对照研究相关文献。使用Review Manager 5.3统计软件对生存资料及不良反应进行Meta分析。结果 纳入9篇文献,共计3914例患者。两组有相近总生存(HR=0.83,P=0.31)和无进展生存(HR=0.85,P=0.57);新辅助治疗组放射性肠炎发生率低(RR=0.27,P=0.03),但两组间放射性膀胱炎发生率(RR=0.30,P=0.34)和≥3级中性粒细胞骨髓抑制发生率(RR=0.77,P=0.46)相近。结论 ⅠB2-ⅡB期宫颈癌两种治疗模式生存获益相当,新辅助治疗组放射性肠炎发生率较低,但两组间放射性膀胱炎和≥3级中性粒细胞骨髓抑制发生率相近。新辅助治疗联合手术较标准治疗方案并未带来更多的优越性。     

局限期SCLC超分割比常规分割放化疗疗效及安全性Meta分析

目的 系统评价放化疗治疗局限期SCLC时超分割与常规分割不同放疗模式有效性及安全性差异。方法 计算机检索Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方、中国知网和维普等数据库,查找超分割对比常规分割放化疗治疗局限期SCLC的临床对照研究文献。使用Revman 5.3统计软件对近期疗效、生存资料及不良反应进行Meta分析。结果 纳入8篇临床对照研究文献,共计1 361例患者。Meta分析结果显示,超分割组与常规分割组有着相似的客观缓解率(OR=1.31,95%CI为 0.64~2.69,P=0.46);两组间2、5年OS率相近(RR=1.10,95%CI为 0.98~1.24,P=0.12;RR=1.13,95%CI为 0.75~1.69,P=0.56);超分割组的≥2级放射性食管炎发生率较常规分割组高(RR=1.74,95%CI为 1.39~2.17,P<0.05),但两组间≥2级的放射性肺炎(RR=0.73,95%CI:0.24~2.24,P=0.58)、>3级血液学毒性(RR=1.18,95%CI为 0.99~1.39,P=0.06)发生率相近。结论 在局限期SCLC放化疗中两种放疗分割模式的近期疗效与生存获益相当,但超分割放疗的放射性食管炎发生率较高。超分割放疗并未带来较常规分割放疗更多的优越性。     

进展期食管鳞癌新辅助放化疗与新辅助化疗的Meta分析

目的 系统评价新辅助放化疗(NCRT)联合手术与新辅助化疗(NCT)联合手术治疗进展期食管鳞癌的疗效和安全性。方法 利用计算机检索PubMed、The Cochrane Library、EMbase、CBM、CNKI、WanFang、VIP数据库,搜集NCRT与NCT联合手术治疗食管鳞癌的临床对照研究,检索时限均从建库至2019年1月。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料并评价纳入研究的偏倚风险后,采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果 共纳入8项临床对照研究,包括食管鳞癌患者995例。Meta分析结果显示NCRT对比NCT组,经手术治疗后无肿瘤细胞残存(R0)切除率更高(OR=2.14,95%CI为1.03~4.45,P=0.040)、病理完全缓解率(pCR)更高(OR=4.19,95%CI为1.71~10.28,P=0.002);两组术后并发症发生率(OR=1.37,95%CI为0.76~2.48,P=0.300)和围术期死亡风险(OR=1.28,95%CI为0.58~2.83,P=0.540)相近;NCRT组的食管鳞癌患者的远期生存情况更好(HR=0.77,95%CI为0.64~0.92,P=0.005)。结论 NCRT联合手术对比NCT联合手术治疗进展期食管鳞癌能够有更高的R0切除率、pCR率,并不会明显增加围术期并发症发生和围术期死亡风险,且能够更加明显的改善食管鳞癌患者的远期生存。     

经匹配后放化疗与手术治疗局限期小细胞肺癌预后比较

目的 比较手术与放化疗治疗局限期小细胞肺癌(SCLC)患者的总生存(OS)、无进展生存(PFS)、颅内无进展生存(BMFS)预后差异。方法 收集2000-2016年在浙江省肿瘤医院经手术治疗的局限期SCLC患者 69例,在 503例经根治性放化疗的局限期SCLC数据库中,按照T、N分期,治疗年份,年龄,性别,是否预防性脑照射(PCI)等进行1∶1匹配 69例患者为放化疗组。结果 共纳入 138例患者,手术组 69例(Ⅰ期 24例、Ⅱ期 14例、Ⅲ期 31例),放化疗组 69例(Ⅰ期 24例、Ⅱ期 14例、Ⅲ期 31例)。手术组与放化疗组的中位OS期分别为37.1个月(95%CI为 24.1~50.2个月)和45.0个月(95%CI为 15.8~74.2个月),2、5年OS率分别为60%、45%和64%、45%(P=0.846);中位PFS期分别为27.1个月(95%CI为 0.00~60.3个月)和36.2个月(95%CI为 20.9~51.4个月),2、5年PFS率分别为52%、38%和56%、40%(P=0.610)。2、5年BMFS率分别为80%、76%和84%、80%(P=0.774)。Ⅰ期手术组、放疗组 5年OS率分别为62%、40%(P=0.038),PFS率分别为80%、40%(P=0.048),BMFS率分别为92%、95%(P=0.816)。Ⅱ期手术组、放化疗组 5年OS率分别为41%、51%(P=0.946),PFS率分别为65%、42%(P=0.280),BMFS率分别为75%、78%(P=0.720)。Ⅲ期手术组、放化疗组 5年OS率分别为25%、48%(P=0.220),5年PFS率分别为28%、36%(P=0.333),5年BMFS率分别为76%、74%(P=0.842)。结论 手术治疗可为Ⅰ期患者带来生存获益,Ⅱ期患者两组生存相当,Ⅲ期患者放化疗组有更好生存趋势。最终结论需要更大样本或开展前瞻性研究得出。     

Neoadjuvant treatments for locally advanced,resectable esophageal cancer: A network meta‐analysis

The relative survival benefits and postoperative mortality among the different types of neoadjuvant treatments (such as chemotherapy only, radiotherapy only or chemoradiotherapy) for esophageal cancer patients are not well established. To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapies in resectable esophageal cancer, a Bayesian network meta‐analysis was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications up to May 2016. ASCO and ASTRO annual meeting abstracts were also searched up to the 2015 conferences. Randomized controlled trials that compared at least two of the following treatments for resectable esophageal cancer were included: surgery alone, surgery preceded by neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant radiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The primary outcome assessed from the trials was overall survival. Thirty‐one randomized controlled trials involving 5496 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. The network meta‐analysis showed that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved overall survival when compared to all other treatments including surgery alone (HR 0.75, 95% CR 0.67–0.85), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.83. 95% CR 0.70–0.96) and neoadjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.82, 95% CR 0.67–0.99). However, the risk of postoperative mortality increased when comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to either surgery alone (RR 1.46, 95% CR 1.00–2.14) or to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 1.58, 95% CR 1.00–2.49). In conclusion, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival but may also increase the risk of postoperative mortality in patients locally advanced resectable esophageal carcinoma.     

Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer - a definition and effective treatment strategy

The survival benefit of extended surgery for advanced pancreatic cancer has been denied by four randomized controlled trials. However, there still is confusion and conflict over the definition and effective treatment strategy for so-called locally advanced or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Although there are a number of reports that showed outcomes of preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for this disease, the definitions and treatment regimens described in these studies vary. Moreover, all of the studies were Phase I / II trials or retrospective analysis, and there is no Phase III trial currently focused on this issue. It is urgently necessary to establish an international consensus on the definition of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. The usefulness of neoadjuvant treatment for this disease should also be elucidated in future clinical trials. In this review article, we discuss the current understanding and definition of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and the value of neoadjuvant treatment strategy for treating it.     

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma has been a focus of study, but no agreement has been reached on clinical randomized controlled trials and relevant systematic evaluation. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery with surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma. Medline and manual searches was conducted in PubMed, ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) meeting summary, Embase, the Cochrane Library (up to October 2010), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database, Wanfang Database. The selection contents were to identify all published and unpublished RCTs that compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery with surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma. Sixteen RCTs which included 2,594 patients were selected. The risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval [CI]; P value), expressed as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone (treatment versus control), was 1.02 (0.95, 1.10; P=0.54) for 1-year survival, 1.29 (1.13, 1.47; P=0.0001) for 3-year survival, 1.31 (1.13, 1.51; P=0.0003) for 5-year survival, 1.00 (0.95, 1.04; P= 0.85) for rate of resection and 0.89 (0.64, 1.23; P=0.48) for operative mortality. The results showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma can raise the overall survival rate of patients with esophageal carcinoma, but it does not affect treatment-related mortality.     

Adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies in resectable pancreatic cancer: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

The timing of surgery and antineoplastic therapies in patients with resectable non-metastatic pancreatic cancer is still a controversial matter of debate, with special regard to neoadjuvant approaches. Following the criteria of the PRISMA statement, a literature search was conducted looking for RCTs focusing on adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies in resectable pancreatic cancer. The quality of the available evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Data extraction was carried out by two independent investigators. The search led to the identification of 2830 papers of which 14 RCTs focusing on adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment of resectable pancreatic cancer eligible for the systematic review. Risk of bias was estimated “unclear” in 3 studies and “high” in 5 studies. Median age ranged between 53 and 66. Overall survival in the surgery-only arms ranged between 11 and 20.2 months; in the adjuvant treatment arms 12.5–29.8 months; and in the neoadjuvant setting 9.9–19.4 months. Neoadjuvant protocols should be offered only in randomized clinical trials comparing the standard of care (surgery followed by adjuvant treatments) to a neoadjuvant approach followed by surgery and adjuvant treatment.     

Response of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer to neoadjuvant therapy is not reflected by radiographic indicators

BACKGROUND:

Experience with preoperative therapy for other cancers has led to an assumption that borderline resectable pancreatic cancers can be converted to resectable cancers with preoperative therapy. In this study, the authors sought to determine the rate at which neoadjuvant therapy is associated with a reduction in the size or stage of borderline resectable tumors.

METHODS:

Patients who had borderline resectable pancreatic cancer and received neoadjuvant therapy before potentially undergoing surgery at the authors' institution between 2005 and 2010 were identified. The patients' pretreatment and post‐treatment pancreatic protocol computed tomography images were rereviewed to determine changes in tumor size or stage using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (version 1.1) and standardized anatomic criteria.

RESULTS:

The authors identified 129 patients who met inclusion criteria. Of the 122 patients who had their disease restaged after receiving preoperative therapy, 84 patients (69%) had stable disease, 15 patients (12%) had a partial response to therapy, and 23 patients (19%) had progressive disease. Although only 1 patient (0.8%) had their disease downstaged to resectable status after receiving neoadjuvant therapy, 85 patients (66%) underwent pancreatectomy. The median overall survival duration for all 129 patients was 22 months (95% confidence interval, 14‐30 months). The median overall survival duration for the patients who underwent pancreatectomy was 33 months (95% confidence interval, 25‐41 months) and was not associated with RECIST response (P = .78).

CONCLUSIONS:

Radiographic downstaging was rare after neoadjuvant therapy, and RECIST response was not an effective treatment endpoint for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. The authors concluded that these patients should undergo pancreatectomy after initial therapy in the absence of metastases. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the survival outcomes of patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PurposeTo determine the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus primary surgery on survival outcomes for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using an approach based on a meta-analysis.MethodsThe PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane library, and CNKI databases were systematically browsed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which met a set of predetermined inclusion criteria throughout January 2020. Hazard ratios (HRs) were applied for the pooled overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) values, and the pooled survival rates at 1-year and 3-year were used as the relative risk (RR). All the pooled effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model.ResultsNineteen RCTs contained a total of 4372 NSCLC at I-III stages was selected for final meta-analysis. We noted NACT was significantly associated with an improvement in OS (HR: 0.87; 95%CI: 0.81–0.94; P < 0.001) and PFS (HR: 0.86; 95%CI: 0.78–0.96; P = 0.005). Moreover, the survival rate at 1-year (RR: 1.07; 95%CI: 1.02–1.12; P = 0.007) and 3-year (RR: 1.16; 95%CI: 1.06–1.27; P = 0.001) in the NACT group was significantly higher than the survival rate for the primary surgery group. Finally, the treatment effects of NACT versus primary surgery on survival outcomes might be different when stratified by the mean age of patients and the tumor stages.ConclusionsNACT could improve survival outcomes for patients with resectable NSCLC, suggesting its suitable future applicability for clinical practice. However, large-scale RCT should be conducted to assess the chemotherapy regimen on the prognosis of resectable NSCLC.     

The yield of staging laparoscopy for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer in the PREOPANC randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe necessity of the staging laparoscopy in patients with pancreatic cancer is still debated. The objective of this study was to assess the yield of staging laparoscopy for detecting occult metastases in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.MethodThis was a post-hoc analysis of the randomized controlled PREOPANC trial in which patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer were randomized between preoperative chemoradiotherapy or immediate surgery. Patients assigned to preoperative treatment underwent a staging laparoscopy prior to preoperative treatment according to protocol, to avoid unnecessary chemoradiotherapy in patients with occult metastatic disease.ResultsOf the 246 included patients, 7 did not undergo surgery. A staging laparoscopy was performed in 133 patients (55.6%) and explorative laparotomy in 106 patients (44.4%). At staging laparoscopy, occult metastases were detected in 13 patients (9.8%); 12 liver metastases and 1 peritoneal metastasis. At direct explorative laparotomy, occult metastases were found in 9 patients (8.5%); 6 with liver metastases, 1 with peritoneal metastases, and 2 with metastases at multiple sites. One patient had peritoneal metastases at exploration after a negative staging laparoscopy. Patients with occult metastases were more likely to receive palliative chemotherapy if found with staging laparoscopy compared to laparotomy (76.9% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.040).ConclusionsStaging laparoscopy detected occult metastases in about 10% of patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. These patients were more likely to receive palliative systemic chemotherapy compared to patients in whom occult metastases were detected with laparotomy. A staging laparoscopy is recommended before planned resection.