s41416-020-01062-6.pdf (236.92 kB)
Reply to ‘Comment on “The myth of pulmonary metastasectomy’”
journal contribution
posted on 2023-06-09, 21:40 authored by Fergus Macbeth, Lesley FallowfieldLesley FallowfieldWe thank Zellweger and Gonzalez for their comments on our article about pulmonary metastasectomy.1 We agree with much of what they say about the need for multidisciplinary management and the importance of ruling out other diagnoses such as primary lung cancer, but we need to correct several misunderstandings. The results of all 93 randomised patients in PulMiCC have now been published in an updated report,2 which confirms the lack of a significant survival difference (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56,1.56)) and median survivals of 3.5 and 3.8 years for intervention and control patients, respectively. Although the numbers randomised were small, the trial has sufficient power to make it highly improbable that the 5-year survival rate in unoperated patients is <5%, as is so widely believed.
History
Publication status
- Published
File Version
- Published version
Journal
British Journal of CancerISSN
0007-0920Publisher
Springer NatureExternal DOI
Volume
123Page range
1835-1836Department affiliated with
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer (SHORE-C) Publications
Full text available
- Yes
Peer reviewed?
- Yes
Legacy Posted Date
2020-09-25First Open Access (FOA) Date
2021-09-23First Compliant Deposit (FCD) Date
2020-09-25Usage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedKeywords
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC