The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Editorial
PreviousPrevious
Volume 345:1699-1700 December 6, 2001 Number 23
NextNext

Removing the Primary Tumor after the Cancer Has Spread

Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF
-Purchase this article

Commentary
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-Related Article
 by Flanigan, R. C.
-PubMed Citation
Most patients who die of cancer die because of metastatic disease, and therefore removal of the primary tumor in patients who already have evidence of metastasis seems illogical, at least in the absence of symptoms caused by the primary tumor. Many thoughtful oncologists have asked, "What is the point of closing the barn door once the horse has bolted?" in the belief that subjecting patients with incurable disease to the risks involved in unnecessary surgery is a poor medical decision.

This idea is challenged in this issue of the Journal by Flanigan et al.,1 who report the results of a . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References


Related Letters:

Nephrectomy and Interleukin-2 for Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma
Pantuck A. J., Belldegrun A. S., Figlin R. A.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2001; 345:1711-1712, Dec 6, 2001. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.