Simultaneous resection for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: current state-of-the-art

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) presents with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) at diagnosis. Surgical approaches for patients with sCRLM have evolved over the past decades. Simultaneous resection (SR) of CRC and sCRLM for selected patients has emerged as a safe and efficient alternative approach to traditional staged resections.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science databases with the end of search date October 30, 2023. The MeSH terms "simultaneous resections" and "combined resections" in combination with "colorectal liver metastases," "colorectal cancer," "liver resection," and "hepatectomy" were searched in the title and/or abstract.

RESULTS

SRs aim to achieve maximal tumor clearance, minimizing the risk of disease progression and optimizing the potential for long-term survival. Improvements in perioperative care, advances in surgical techniques, and a better understanding of patient selection criteria have collectively contributed to reducing morbidity and mortality associated with these complex procedures. Several studies have demonstrated that SR are associated with reduced overall length of stay and lower costs with comparable morbidity and long-term outcomes. In light of these outcomes, the proportion of patients undergoing SR for CRC and sCRLM has increased substantially over the past 2 decades.

CONCLUSION

For patients with sCRLM, SR represents an attractive alternative to the traditional staged approach and should be selectively used; however, the decision on whether to proceed with a simultaneous versus staged approach should be individualized based on several patient- and disease-related factors.

A review of targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer

Surgical resection is the cornerstone of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) and offers the best chance at long-term survival. Unfortunately, most patients do not present with resectable metastatic disease and, among patients who do undergo curative-intent resection, many will develop recurrence. In turn, patients require a multi-disciplinary treatment approach with a combination of chemotherapy, surgery, radiation, and/or liver directed therapies that is guided by patient disease burden and clinical status. The development of targeted therapies has led to varying success in other cancers and has emerged as a treatment option for patients with metastatic CRC. While cytotoxic chemotherapy aims to kill cells as they replicate, targeted therapies are directed at biologic features of cancers, like angiogenesis or immune checkpoints. Targeted therapy can facilitate a more treatment tailored approach to the unique genomic alterations of the tumor and hopefully deliver more personalized therapy. We herein provide a systematic review of approved targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic CRC and provide an overview of the current literature.

Which surgical strategy for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases provides the best outcome? A comparison between primary first, liver first and simultaneous approach

BACKGROUND

There is no clear consensus about the best surgical strategy for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous liver metastases (SCRLM).

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2019, patients with CRC and SCRLM considered for curative treatment were included. Perioperative and follow-up data were analysed to examine the safety and survival outcomes of primary first (PF), liver first (LF) and simultaneous resection (SR) strategies.

RESULTS

204 patients were identified, consisting of PF (n = 129), LF (n = 26) and SR (n = 49). Forty-five patients (22.1%) failed to have either the primary or the liver metastases resected following initial LF (n = 11, 42.3%) or PF (n = 34, 26.4%), respectively (p < 0.001). The postoperative morbidity rates were 31.0%, 38.4% and 40.8% in PF, LF and SR group, respectively (p = 0.409); the mortality rates were 2.3%, 0% and 4.1%, respectively (p = 0.547). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) were 94%, 72%, 53% in the PF group, 74%, 54%, 36% in the LF group, and 91%, 74%, 63% in the SR group. LF group had the worst OS compared to PF and SR (p = 0.040, p = 0.052). The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) were 31%, 15%, 10% in PF, 21%, 9% and 9% in LF and 45%, 28% and 28% in SR group, respectively. SR group had a better DFS compared to PF and LF (p = 0.005, p = 0.008). At the multivariate analysis, there was no difference between the three strategies in terms of OS (PF vs SR OS-HR 1.090, p = 0.808; LF vs SR OS-HR 1.582, p = 0.365) and the PF had a worse DFS compared to the SR approach (PF vs SR DFS-HR 1.803, p = 0.007; LF vs SR DFS-HR 1.252, p = 0.492).

CONCLUSIONS

PF, LF and SR had comparable postoperative morbidity and mortality. The three surgical strategies had similar OS outcomes. The PF strategy was associated with a worse DFS than SR, while the LF approach was associated with a high failure rate to progress to the second stage (primary tumour resection).

Simultaneous versus staged colorectal and hepatic resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases: a meta-analysis of outcomes and clinical characteristics

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the comparative outcomes and clinical characteristics of simultaneous and staged colorectal and hepatic resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources, and bibliographic reference lists. Perioperative morbidity and mortality, anastomotic leak, wound infection, bile leak, bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess, sub-phrenic abscess, reoperation, recurrence, 5-year overall survival, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 41 comparative studies reporting a total of 12,081 patients who underwent simultaneous (n = 5013) or staged (n = 7068) resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases. There were significantly lower use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.003), higher right-sided colonic resections (p < 0.00001), and minor hepatic resections (p < 0.00001) in the simultaneous group. The simultaneous resection was associated with significantly lower rate of bleeding (OR 0.60, p = 0.03) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD - 5.40, p < 0.00001) compared to the staged resection. However, no significant difference was found in perioperative morbidity (OR1.04, p = 0.63), mortality (RD 0.00, p = 0.19), anastomotic leak (RD 0.01, p = 0.33), bile leak (OR 0.83, p = 0.50), wound infection (OR 1.17, p = 0.19), intra-abdominal abscess (RD 0.01, p = 0.26), sub-phrenic abscess (OR 1.26, p = 0.48), reoperation (OR 1.32, p = 0.18), recurrence (OR 1.33, p = 0.10), 5-year overall survival (OR 0.88, p = 0.19), or procedure time (MD - 23.64, p = 041) between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite demonstrating nearly comparable outcomes, the best available evidence (level 2) regarding simultaneous and staged colorectal and hepatic resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases is associated with major selection bias. It is time to conduct high-quality randomised studies with respect to burden and laterality of disease. We recommend the staged approach for complex cases.

Simultaneous Versus Staged Resection of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

For patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastasis, either a simultaneous, or a two-staged resection of the primary tumor and the liver metastases is possible. There are currently no guidelines preferring one approach to the other.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent hepatic resection at our university hospital from 2007-2016 were included. Clinical, histopathologic, serologic, and survival data were analyzed. The primary end point was tumor-specific survival for patients with simultaneous versus staged resections.

RESULTS

Of all 140 patients, 68 underwent simultaneous resection and 72 underwent staged resection. The characteristics of both groups were comparable. Patients with simultaneous resections had a shorter duration of cumulative operation time (299 versus 460 min; P = 0.003) and a shorter cumulative length of hospital stay (23 versus 43 d; P = 0.002). Perioperative mortality (P = 0.257) did not differ significantly; however, patients with simultaneous resections had higher rates of grade 2 complications according to Clavien-Dindo (P < 0.001). Tumor-specific 1-y survival was 85 ± 5% for simultaneous and 83 ± 5% for staged resection (P = 0.631). On multivariable analysis, pT4 (P = 0.038), pN3 (P = 0.003), and G3/4 (P = 0.041) of the primary tumor and postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo 3/4/5, P = 0.003) were poor prognostic factors regarding tumor-specific survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the largest and most thoroughly documented retrospective single-center studies of consecutive patients with synchronous hepatic metastases. Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer together with hepatic metastases is a safe procedure in selected patients and does not have a significant influence on long-term survival.

Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases; a practice survey

BACKGROUND

We examined surgeon practice intentions and barriers to performing simultaneous resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases.

METHODS

We electronically surveyed North American surgeons who provide colorectal cancer care with a pilot-tested questionnaire. Four clinical scenarios of increasing complexity were presented. Perceived outcomes of and barriers to simultaneous resection were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale. We compared results between general and hepatobiliary surgeons.

RESULTS

Responses (rate 20%, 234/1166) included 50 general and 134 hepatobiliary surgeons. High likelihood scores for support of simultaneous resection among general and hepatobiliary surgeons, respectively, included the following for: minor liver and low complexity colon, 83% and 98% (p < 0.001); minor liver and rectal resection, 57% and 73% (p = 0.042); complex liver and low complexity colon resection, 26% and 24% (p = 0.858); and, complex liver and rectal resection, 11% and 7.0% (p = 0.436). Among hepatobiliary surgeons, the most common barriers to simultaneous resections were patient comorbidities and lung metastases, whereas certain general surgeons additionally identified transfer of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeon support for simultaneous resection was high for cases with minor hepatectomy, and low for cases involving major hepatectomy. These results suggest that clinical trials should involve patients with limited disease to evaluate post-operative complications and cost.

Surgical treatment of stage IV colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The ideal treatment approach for colorectal cancer (CRC) with synchronous liver metastases (SCRLM) remains debated. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the 'bowel-first' approach (BFA), simultaneous resection (SIM), and the 'liver-first' approach (LFA).

METHODS

A systematic search of comparative studies in CRC with SCRLM was undertaken using the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases. Outcome measures included postoperative complications, 30- and 90-day mortality, chemotherapy use, treatment completion rate, 3- and 5-year recurrence-free survival, and 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS). Pairwise and network meta-analysis were performed to compare strategies. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I² statistic.

RESULTS

One prospective and 43 retrospective studies reporting on 10 848 patients were included. Patients undergoing the LFA were more likely to have rectal primaries and a higher metastatic load. The SIM approach resulted in a higher risk of major morbidity and 30-day mortality. Compared to the BFA, the LFA more frequently resulted in failure to complete treatment as planned (34% versus 6%). Pairwise and network meta-analysis showed a similar 5-year OS between LFA and BFA and a more favorable 5-year OS after SIM compared to LFA (odds ratio 0.25-0.90, p = 0.02, I² = 0%), but not compared to BFA.

CONCLUSION

Despite a higher tumor load in LFA compared to BFA patients, survival was similar. A lower rate of treatment completion was observed with LFA. Uncertainty remains substantial due to imprecise estimates of treatment effects. In the absence of prospective trials, treatment of stage IV CRC patients should be individually tailored.