We have located links that may give you full text access.
Liver Resection Improves Survival in Colorectal Cancer Patients: Causal-effects From Population-level Instrumental Variable Analysis.
Annals of Surgery 2019 October
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate population-level causal effects of liver resection on survival of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRC-LM).
BACKGROUND: A randomized trial to prove that liver resection improves survival in patients with CRC-LM is neither feasible nor ethical. Here, we test this assertion using instrumental variable (IV) analysis that allows for causal-inference by controlling for observed and unobserved confounding effects.
METHODS: We abstracted data on patients with synchronous CRC-LM using the California Cancer Registry from 2000 to 2012 and linked the records to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Inpatient Database. We used 2 instruments: resection rates in a patient's neighborhood (within 50-mile radius)-NALR rate; and Medical Service Study Area resection rates-MALR rate. IV analysis was performed using the 2SLS method.
RESULTS: A total of 24,828 patients were diagnosed with stage-IV colorectal cancer of which 16,382 (70%) had synchronous CRC-LM. Liver resection was performed in 1635 (9.8%) patients. NALR rates ranged from 8% (lowest-quintile) to 11% (highest-quintile), whereas MALR rates ranged from 3% (lowest quintile) to 19% (highest quintile). There was a strong association between instruments and probability of liver resection (F-statistic at median cut-off: NALR 24.8; MALR 266.8; P < 0.001). IV analysis using both instruments revealed a 23.6 month gain in survival (robust SE 4.4, P < 0.001) with liver resection for patients whose treatment choices were influenced by the rates of resection in their geographic area (marginal patients), after accounting for measured and unmeasured confounders.
CONCLUSION: Less than 10% of patients with CRC-LM had liver resection. Significant geographic variation in resection rates is attributable to community biases. Liver resection leads to extensive survival benefit, accounting for measured and unmeasured confounders.
BACKGROUND: A randomized trial to prove that liver resection improves survival in patients with CRC-LM is neither feasible nor ethical. Here, we test this assertion using instrumental variable (IV) analysis that allows for causal-inference by controlling for observed and unobserved confounding effects.
METHODS: We abstracted data on patients with synchronous CRC-LM using the California Cancer Registry from 2000 to 2012 and linked the records to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Inpatient Database. We used 2 instruments: resection rates in a patient's neighborhood (within 50-mile radius)-NALR rate; and Medical Service Study Area resection rates-MALR rate. IV analysis was performed using the 2SLS method.
RESULTS: A total of 24,828 patients were diagnosed with stage-IV colorectal cancer of which 16,382 (70%) had synchronous CRC-LM. Liver resection was performed in 1635 (9.8%) patients. NALR rates ranged from 8% (lowest-quintile) to 11% (highest-quintile), whereas MALR rates ranged from 3% (lowest quintile) to 19% (highest quintile). There was a strong association between instruments and probability of liver resection (F-statistic at median cut-off: NALR 24.8; MALR 266.8; P < 0.001). IV analysis using both instruments revealed a 23.6 month gain in survival (robust SE 4.4, P < 0.001) with liver resection for patients whose treatment choices were influenced by the rates of resection in their geographic area (marginal patients), after accounting for measured and unmeasured confounders.
CONCLUSION: Less than 10% of patients with CRC-LM had liver resection. Significant geographic variation in resection rates is attributable to community biases. Liver resection leads to extensive survival benefit, accounting for measured and unmeasured confounders.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app