Impact of the degree of liver resection on survival for patients with multiple liver metastases from colorectal cancer

Clinical outcomes of parenchymal-sparing versus anatomic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The advantages of parenchymal-sparing resection (PSR) over anatomic resection (AR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remain controversial. Here, we aim to evaluate their safety and efficacy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term perioperative outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes for PSR and AR were performed by searching Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were considered eligible (totally 7228 patients: AR, n = 3154 (43.6%) vs. PSR, n = 4074 (56.4%)). Overall survival (OS, HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.95-1.22, P = 0.245) and disease-free survival (DFS, HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.94-1.28, P = 0.259) were comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences in 3-year OS, 5-year OS, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS, 3-year liver recurrence-free survival (liver-RFS) and 5-year liver-RFS. In terms of perioperative outcome, patients undergoing AR surgery were associated with prolonged operation time (WMD = 51.48 min, 95% CI: 29.03-73.93, P < 0.001), higher amount of blood loss (WMD = 189.92 ml, 95% CI: 21.39-358.45, P = 0.027), increased intraoperative blood transfusion rate (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.54-3.26, P < 0.001), prolonged hospital stay (WMD = 1.00 day, 95% CI: 0.34-1.67, P = 0.003), postoperative complications (RR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.88-2.77, P < 0.001), and 90-day mortality (RR = 3.08, 95% CI: 1.88-5.03, P < 0.001). While PSR surgery was associated with positive resection margins (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.61-0.97, P = 0.024), intrahepatic recurrence (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.98, P = 0.021) and repeat hepatectomy (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55-0.76, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Considering relatively acceptable heterogeneity, PSR had better perioperative outcomes without compromising oncological long-term outcomes. However, these findings must be carefully interpreted, requiring more supporting evidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023445332.

Pushing the Limits of Surgical Resection in Colorectal Liver Metastasis: How Far Can We Go?

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and up to 50% of all patients diagnosed will develop metastatic disease. Management of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has been constantly improving, aided by newer and more effective chemotherapy agents and the use of multidisciplinary teams. However, the only curative treatment remains surgical resection of the CRLM. Although survival for surgically resected patients has shown modest improvement, this is mostly because of the fact that what is constantly evolving is the indication for resection. Surgeons are constantly pushing the limits of what is considered resectable or not, thus enhancing and enlarging the pool of patients who can be potentially benefited and even cured with aggressive surgical procedures. There are a variety of procedures that have been developed, which range from procedures to stimulate hepatic growth, such as portal vein embolization, two-staged hepatectomy, or the association of both, to technically challenging procedures such as simultaneous approaches for synchronous metastasis, ex-vivo or in-situ perfusion with total vascular exclusion, or even liver transplant. This article reviewed the major breakthroughs in liver surgery for CRLM, showing how much has changed and what has been achieved in the field of CRLM.

Microwave Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review and Pooled Oncological Analyses

Simple Summary

Liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represents the best curative option; however, few patients are candidates for surgery. Microwave ablation (MWA) can be a valid alternative in selected patients. This systematic review reports the oncological results of MWA for CRLM. The literature available on the Web was analyzed for reports concerning MWA for resectable CRLM, published before January 2021. Finally, 12 papers concerning MWA complications, recurrence-free (RF) cases, patients free from local recurrence (FFLR), and overall survival rates (OS) were selected. Global RF rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 65.1%, 44.6%, and 34.3%, respectively. Global FFLR at 3, 6, and 12 months were 96.3%, 89.6%, and 83.7%, respectively. Global OS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 86.7%, 59.6%, and 44.8%, respectively. A better FFLR was achieved with an MWA surgical approach at 3, 6, and 12 months, with 97.1%, 92.7%, and 88.6%, respectively. Surgical MWA for CRLM smaller than 3 cm was a safe and valid option. MWA can be entered as part of the flowchart decision of CRLM curative treatment, especially for use in the parenchyma-sparing strategy and as a complement to surgery.

Abstract

(1) Background: colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are the most common extra-lymphatic metastases in colorectal cancer; however, few patients are fit for curative surgery. Microwave ablation (MWA) showed promising outcomes in this cohort of patients. This systematic review and pooled analysis aimed to analyze the oncological results of MWA for CRLM. (2) Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and the Wiley Online Library databases were searched for reports published before January 2021. We included papers assessing MWA, treating resectable CRLM with curative intention. We evaluated the reported MWA-related complications and oncological outcomes as being recurrence-free (RF), free from local recurrence (FFLR), and overall survival rates (OS). (3) Results: Twelve out of 4822 papers (395 patients) were finally included. Global RF rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 65.1%, 44.6%, and 34.3%, respectively. Global FFLR rates at 3, 6, and 12 months were 96.3%, 89.6%, and 83.7%, respectively. Global OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 86.7%, 59.6%, and 44.8%, respectively. A better FFLR was reached using the MWA surgical approach at 3, 6, and 12 months, with reported rates of 97.1%, 92.7%, and 88.6%, respectively. (4) Conclusions: Surgical MWA treatment for CRLM smaller than 3 cm is a safe and valid option. This approach can be safely included for selected patients in the curative intent approaches to treating CRLM.

Contemporary evidence on colorectal liver metastases ablation: toward a paradigm shift in locoregional treatment

Image-guided percutaneous ablation techniques represent an attractive local therapy for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) given its low risk of severe complications, which allows for early initiation of adjuvant therapies and spare functional liver parenchyma, allowing repeated treatments at the time of recurrence. However, ablation does not consistently achieve similar oncological outcomes to surgery, with the latter being currently considered the first-line local treatment modality in international guidelines. Recent application of computer-assisted ablation planning, guidance, and intra-procedural response assessment has improved percutaneous ablation outcomes. In addition, the evolving understanding of tumor molecular profiling has brought to light several biological factors associated with oncological outcomes following local therapies. The standardization of ablation procedures, the understanding of previously unknown biological factors affecting ablation outcomes, and the evidence by ongoing prospective clinical trials are poised to change the current perspective and indications on the use of ablation for CLM.

Technique of vessel-skeletonized parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy for the oncological treatment of bilobar colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

To aid in the oncological management of multiple bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs), we describe a new surgical procedure, VEssel-Skeletonized PArenchyma-sparing Hepatectomy (VESPAH).

STUDY DESIGN

Of 152 patients with CRLMs treated with hepatectomy, 33 patients had multiple bilobar liver metastases (≥8 liver metastases); their surgical procedures and clinical outcomes were retrospectively summarized and compared between those who underwent VESPAH and those who underwent major hepatectomy (Major Hx).

RESULTS

Of the 33 patients, 20 patients were resected by VESPAH (the VESPAH group) and 13 patients by major hepatectomy (Major Hx group). The median number of CRLMs was 13 (range, 8-53) in the VESPAH group and 10 (range, 8-41) in the Major Hx group (P=0.511). No operative mortality nor severe morbidity was observed in either group. The VESPAH group showed earlier recovery of remnant liver function after surgery than the Major Hx group; the incidence of grade B/C post hepatectomy liver failure was 5% in the VESPAH group and 38% in the Major Hx group, P=0.048). Intrahepatic tumor recurrence was confirmed in 14 (70%) and 7 (54%) patients in the VESPAH and Major Hx groups, respectively (P=0.416). There was no significant difference in median overall survival (OS) after hepatectomy between the two groups; the median OS was 47 months in the VESPAH group and 33 months in the Major Hx group (P=0.481). The VESPAH group showed the higher induction rate of adjuvant chemotherapy within 2 months after surgery (P=0.002) and total number of repeat hepatectomy for intrahepatic recurrence (P=0.060) than the Major Hx group.

CONCLUSIONS

VESPAH enables us to clear surgical navigation by hepatic vessel skeletonization and may enhance patient tolerability of not only adjuvant chemotherapy but also repeat hepatectomies during the patients' lifetimes.

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy with hepatic vein resection and reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Hepatectomy remains the most important treatment modality for most malignant liver tumors. Vascular involvement stays a reason for unresectability or major parenchymal resection. A possible way to avoid this is parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSHX) with vascular resection and reconstruction (HVRR). In this article, we aim to demonstrate the specific role of this technique in avoiding post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 10 patients who underwent HVRR was conducted. ^99mTechnetium-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS) was used to predict the future liver remnant function (FLRF). Calculations were made for each patient to compare HVRR and major hepatectomy (with or without portal vein embolization).

RESULTS

In our cohort, there was no perioperative mortality. Two patients suffered a Clavien-Dindo grade 3a complication and none had clinically significant PHLF. Estimated FLRF was significantly higher in HVRR compared to major hepatectomy after portal vein embolization (p < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Instead of focusing on inducing liver remnant hypertrophy, preserving parenchyma through HVRR can be an interesting treatment strategy. It can be performed with an acceptable operative risk. Calculations of FLRF (using HBS) suggest that this approach is able to reduce the risk for PHLF and related morbidity or mortality.

Limitations in resectability of colorectal liver metastases 2020 - A systematic approach for clinicians and patients

Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) affect over 50 % of all patients with colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer in the western world. Resection of CRLM may provide cure and improves survival over chemotherapy alone. However, resectability of CLRM has to be decided in multidisciplinary tumor boards and is based on oncological factors, technical factors and patient factors. The advances of chemotherapy lead to the abolition of contraindications to resection in favor of technical resectability, but somatic mutations and molecular subtyping may improve selection of patients for resection in the future. Technical factors center around anatomy of the lesions, volume of the remnant liver and quality of the liver parenchymal. Multiple strategies have been developed to overcome volume limitations and they are reviewed here. The least investigated topic is how to select the right patients among an elderly and frail patient population for the large variety of technical options specifically for bi-lobar CRLM to keep 90-day mortality as low as possible. The review is an overview over the current state-of-the art and a systematic guide to the topic of resectability of CRLM for both clinicians and patients.

Parenchymal-sparing versus extended hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To assess the safety and efficacy of parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) as a treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

METHODS

A comprehensive medical literature search was performed. Perioperative and long-term survival outcomes were pooled. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies comprising 7081 CLM patients were eligible for this study. The PSH was performed on 3974 (56.1%) patients. We found that the OS (overall survival; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.08) and RFS (recurrence-free survival; HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94-1.07) were comparable between non-PSH and PSH group. The perioperative outcomes were better in PSH than in non-PSH group. Non-PSH group was significantly associated with longer operative time (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.33-2.00), increased estimated blood loss (SMD = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.64-2.07), higher intraoperative transfusion rate (risk ratio [RR] = 2.27, 95% CI: 1.60-3.23), and more postoperative complications (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.16-1.66). Meta-regression analyses revealed that no variable influenced the association between surgical types and the survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that PSH is associated with better perioperative outcomes without compromising oncological outcomes. Given the increasing incidence of hepatic parenchyma, the PSH treatment offers a greater opportunity of repeat resection for intrahepatic recurrent tumors. It should be considered as an effective surgical approach for CLM.

Proposal of Two Prognostic Models for the Prediction of 10-Year Survival after Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases

Background

One-third of 5-year survivors after liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) develop recurrence or tumor-related death. Therefore 10-year survival appears more adequate in defining permanent cure. The aim of this study was to develop prognostic models for the prediction of 10-year survival after liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

Methods

N=965 cases of liver resection for CLM were retrospectively analyzed using univariable and multivariable regression analyses. Receiver operating curve analyses were used to assess the sensitivity and specificity of developed prognostic models and their potential clinical usefulness.

Results

The 10-year survival rate was 15.2%. Age at liver resection, application of chemotherapies of the primary tumor, preoperative Quick's value, hemoglobin level, and grading of the primary colorectal tumor were independent significant predictors for 10-year patient survival. The generated formula to predict 10-year survival based on these preoperative factors displayed an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.716. In regard to perioperative variables, the distance of resection margins and performance of right segmental liver resection were additional independent predictors for 10-year survival. The logit link formula generated with pre- and perioperative variables showed an AUROC of 0.761.

Conclusion

Both prognostic models are potentially clinically useful (AUROCs >0.700) for the prediction of 10-year survival. External validation is required prior to the introduction of these models in clinical patient counselling.

Parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) versus non-PSH for bilobar liver metastases of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Preoperative interventions have increased the resectability of colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases. This retrospective study compares outcomes after liver resection for bilobar CRC metastases between patients who underwent parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy (PSH), i.e., segmentectomies and smaller resections on both lobes, and those treated with non-PSH, i.e., hemihepatectomy plus any resection on the other lobe.

METHODS

A cohort of 119 patients who underwent liver resection for bilobar CRC metastases were included. Perioperative course and long-term survival were compared between 59 patients who underwent PSH and 60 patients who underwent non-PSH. Statistical analyses were done using Pearson's chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Overall survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

The median number of liver metastases was 2 in patients treated with PSH and 3 in those treated with non-PSH (P<0.01). Postoperative mortality, severe complications and radicality did not differ significantly between groups. Median intraoperative bleeding was 250 mL for PSH and 600 mL for non-PSH (P<0.001). Median operation time and hospital stay were significantly shorter for PSH. Overall survival was comparable between groups, also after adjustment for covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in outcome, except for differences in bleeding, operation time and postoperative stay, favoring PSH. Furthermore, minimizing resection did not influence radicality. Hence, this study supports the use of PSH for bilobar CRC liver metastases when possible.

Laparoscopic Parenchyma-sparing Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) is increasingly performed in specialized centers. While there is a trend towards a parenchyma-sparing strategy in multimodal treatment for CLM, its role is yet unclear. In this study we present short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection (LPSLR) at a single center.

Patients and methods

LLR were performed in 951 procedures between August 1998 and March 2017 at Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Patients who primarily underwent LPSLR for CLM were included in the study. LPSLR was defined as non-anatomic hence the patients who underwent hemihepatectomy and sectionectomy were excluded. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. The Accordion classification was used to grade postoperative complications. The median follow-up was 40 months.

Results

296 patients underwent primary LPSLR for CLM. A single specimen was resected in 204 cases, multiple resections were performed in 92 cases. 5 laparoscopic operations were converted to open. The median operative time was 134 minutes, blood loss was 200 ml and hospital stay was 3 days. There was no 90-day mortality in this study. The postoperative complication rate was 14.5%. 189 patients developed disease recurrence. Recurrence in the liver occurred in 146 patients (49%), of whom 85 patients underwent repeated surgical treatment (liver resection [n = 69], ablation [n = 14] and liver transplantation [n = 2]). Five-year overall survival was 48%, median overall survival was 56 months.

Conclusions

LPSLR of CLM can be performed safely with the good surgical and oncological results. The technique facilitates repeated surgical treatment, which may improve survival for patients with CLM.

Outcomes of parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and right hepatectomy for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis: A LiverMetSurvey study

BACKGROUND

Occasionally, right hepatectomy, rather than parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy, has been performed for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis. The relative oncologic benefits of parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and right hepatectomy are unclear. This study compared the outcomes of patients with solitary small colorectal liver metastasis in the right liver who underwent parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and those who underwent right hepatectomy.

METHODS

The study population consisted of a multicentric cohort of 21,072 patients operated for colorectal liver metastasis between 2000 and 2015 whose data were collected in the LiverMetSurvey registry. Patients with a pathologically confirmed solitary tumor of less than 30 mm in size in the right liver were included. The short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy were compared to those of patients who underwent right hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Of the 1,720 patients who were eligible for the study, 1,478 (86%) underwent parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and 242 (14%) underwent right hepatectomy. The parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy group was associated with lower rates of major complications (3% vs 10%; P < .001) and 90-day mortality (1% vs 3%; P = .008). Liver recurrence occurred similarly in both groups (20% vs 22%; P = .39). The 5-year recurrence-free survival and overall survival rates were similar in both groups. However, in patients with liver-only recurrence, repeat hepatectomy was more frequently performed in the parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy group than in the right hepatectomy group (67% vs 31%; P < .001), and the overall 5-year survival rate was significantly higher in the parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy group than in the right hepatectomy group (55% vs 23%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy should be considered the standard procedure for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis in the right liver when technically feasible.

Bilobar versus unilobar multiple colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score analysis of surgical outcomes and recurrence patterns

BACKGROUND

Bilobar multiple colorectal liver metastases (MCLM) are often considered incurable or associated with a poor prognosis even after R0 resection. This study was designed to compare the long-term outcomes and recurrence patterns after one-stage resection in patients with bilobar versus unilobar MCLM.

METHODS

The records of patients undergoing parenchymal-sparing intent hepatectomy between 1994 and 2015 were reviewed. Survival and recurrence patterns were analyzed by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The study population included 140 patients: 81 patients with bilobar MCLM versus 59 patients with unilobar MCLM. In the propensity score matching analysis (bilobar, n = 35 vs. unilobar, n = 35), the short-term outcomes did not differ between the two groups. Five-year overall survival (54.8% in bilobar vs. 51.2% in unilobar; P = 0.388) and recurrence-free survival (28.5% in bilobar vs. 36.2% in unilobar; P = 0.261) also did not differ. No significant differences were found in liver-only recurrence (22.9% in bilobar vs. 25.7% in unilobar; P = 1.000) and other recurrence patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

The clearance of bilobar MCLM by one-stage resection of parenchymal-sparing intent provided comparable long-term survival to unilobar MCLM.

Borderline operability in hepatectomy patients is associated with higher rates of failure to rescue after severe complications

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To understand the influence of age and comorbidities, this study analyzed the incidence and risk factors for post-hepatectomy morbidity/mortality in patients with "borderline" (BL) operability, defined by the preoperative factors: age ≥75 years, dependent function, lung disease, ascites/varices, myocardial infarction, stroke, steroids, weight loss >10%, and/or sepsis.

METHODS

All elective hepatectomies were identified in the 2005-2013 ACS-NSQIP database. Predictors of 30-day morbidity/mortality in BL patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

A 3,574/15,920 (22.4%) patients met BL criteria. Despite non-BL and BL patients undergoing similar magnitude hepatectomies (P > 0.4), BL patients had higher severe complication (SC, 23.3% vs. 15.3%) and mortality rates (3.7% vs. 1.2%, P < 0.001). BL patients with any SC experienced a 14.1% mortality rate (vs. 7.3%, non-BL, P < 0.001). Independent risk factors for SC in BL patients included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score >3 (odds ratio, OR - 1.29), smoking (OR - 1.41), albumin <3.5 g/dl (OR - 1.36), bilirubin >1 (OR - 2.21), operative time >240 min (OR - 1.58), additional colorectal procedure (OR - 1.78), and concurrent procedure (OR - 1.73, all P < 0.05). Independent predictors of mortality included disseminated cancer (OR - 0.44), albumin <3.5 g/dl (OR - 1.94), thrombocytopenia (OR - 1.95), and extended/right hepatectomy (OR - 2.81, all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Hepatectomy patients meeting BL criteria have an overall post-hepatectomy mortality rate that is triple that of non-BL patients. With less clinical reserve, BL patients who suffer SC are at greater risk of post-hepatectomy death. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;115:337-343. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomies (PSH) for bilobar colorectal liver metastases are associated with a lower morbidity and similar oncological results: a propensity score matching analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate whether a parenchymal-sparing strategy provides similar results in terms of morbidity, mortality, and oncological outcome of non-PSH hepatectomies in a propensity score matched population (PSMP) in case of multiple (>3) bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment of bilobar liver metastasis is challenging due to the necessity to achieve complete resection margins and a sufficient future remnant liver. Two approaches are adaptable as follows: parenchymal-sparing hepatectomies (PSH) and extended hepatectomies (NON-PSH).

METHODS

A total of 3036 hepatectomies were analyzed from a multicentric retrospective cohort of hepatectomies. Patients were matched in a 1:1 propensity score analysis in order to compare PSH versus NON-PSH resections.

RESULTS

PSH was associated with a lower number of complications (≥1) (25% vs. 34%, p = 0.04) and a lower grade of Dindo-Clavien III and IV (10 vs. 16%, p = 0.03). Liver failure was less present in PSH (2 vs. 7%, p = 0.006), with a shorter ICU stay (0 day vs. 1 day, p = 0.004). No differences were demonstrated in overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, PSH resection for bilobar multiple CLMs represents a valid alternative to NON-PSH resection in selected patients with a reduced morbidity and comparable oncological results.

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy for deep-placed colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The feasibility of parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy has yet to be assessed based on the tumor location, which affects the choice of treatment in patients with colorectal liver metastases.

METHODS

Sixty-three patients underwent first curative hepatectomy for deep-placed colorectal liver metastases whose center was located >30 mm from the liver surface. Operative outcomes were compared among patients who underwent parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy or major hepatectomy (≥3 segments).

RESULTS

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy and major hepatectomy were performed for deep-placed colorectal liver metastases in 40 (63%) and 23 (37%) patients, respectively. Resection time was longer in the parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy than in the major hepatectomy group (57 vs 39 minutes) (P = .02) and cut-surface area was wider (120 vs 86 cm²) (P < .01). Resected volume was smaller in the parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy than in the major hepatectomy group (251 vs 560 g) (P < .01). No differences were found between the 2 groups for total operation time (306 vs 328 minutes), amount of blood loss (516 vs 400 mL), rate of major complications (10% vs 13%), and positive operative margins (5% vs 4%). Overall, recurrence-free, and liver recurrence-free survivals did not differ between the 2 groups. Direct major hepatectomy without portal venous embolization could not have been performed in 40% of the parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy group (16/40) because of the small liver remnant volume.

CONCLUSION

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy for deep-placed colorectal liver metastases was performed safely without compromising oncologic radicality. Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy can increase the number of patients eligible for an operation by halving the resection volume and by increasing the chance of direct operative treatment in patients with ill-located colorectal liver metastases.

Parenchymal-sparing liver surgery in patients with colorectal carcinoma liver metastases

Liver resection is the treatment of choice for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). However, major resections are often required to achieve R0 resection, which are associated with substantial rates of morbidity and mortality. Maximizing the amount of residual liver gained increasing significance in modern liver surgery due to the high incidence of chemotherapy-associated parenchymal injury. This fact, along with the progressive expansion of resectability criteria, has led to the development of a surgical philosophy known as "parenchymal-sparing liver surgery" (PSLS). This philosophy includes a variety of resection strategies, either performed alone or in combination with ablative therapies. A profound knowledge of liver anatomy and expert intraoperative ultrasound skills are required to perform PSLS appropriately and safely. There is a clear trend toward PSLS in hepatobiliary centers worldwide as current evidence indicates that tumor biology is the most important predictor of intrahepatic recurrence and survival, rather than the extent of a negative resection margin. Tumor removal avoiding the unnecessary sacrifice of functional parenchyma has been associated with less surgical stress, fewer postoperative complications, uncompromised cancer-related outcomes and higher feasibility of future resections. The increasing evidence supporting PSLS prompts its consideration as the gold-standard surgical approach for CLM.

Parenchymal-Sparing Hepatectomy Does Not Increase Intrahepatic Recurrence in Patients with Advanced Colorectal Liver Metastases

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic impact of major hepatectomy (MH) on liver recurrence has yet to be clarified in patients with advanced colorectal liver metastases (CLMs).

METHODS

In our institute, parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) is a standard procedure for CLMs consistently throughout initial and repeat resection, and MH is selected only in cases in which CLMs are close to major Glisson's pedicles. We reviewed 145 patients who underwent curative hepatectomy for advanced CLMs (≥4 nodules and ≤50 mm in size) from 1999 to 2012. Surgical outcomes and survival were compared between patients who underwent PSH and MH.

RESULTS

PSH was performed in 113 patients (77.9 %) and MH in 32 (22.1 %) patients with advanced CLMs. Tumor characteristics and short-term outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. Incidence of positive tumor margin (8.8 % in PSH vs 9.4 % in MH; p = .927) and rates of liver-only recurrence (43.4 % in PSH and 50.0 % in MH; p = .505) did not differ. No significant differences were found in 5-year overall survival (37.0 % in PSH vs 29.4 % in MH, p = .473), recurrence-free survival (7.6 vs 6.8 %, p = .597), and liver recurrence-free survival (21.0 vs 21.3 %, p = .691). A total of 65 patients had liver-only recurrence, for which repeat hepatectomy was performed in 81.5 % (53 of 65) following our parenchymal-sparing approach.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with advanced CLM, PSH does not increase positive surgical margin or liver recurrence in comparison with MH. A parenchymal-sparing approach offers a high rate of repeat resection for liver recurrence (salvageability).

Impact of parenchymal preserving surgery on survival and recurrence after liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the impact of non-anatomical liver resection (NAR) versus anatomical resection (AR) in patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM), with regard to perioperative and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Analysis of prospectively collected data for patients with CRLM who underwent either AR or NAR between January 1993 and August 2011 was performed. The impact of AR and NAR on morbidity, mortality, margin positivity, redo liver resections, overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) was analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 1574 resections for CRLM were performed. A total of 249 were redo resections and 334 patients underwent combined AR and NAR, hence, 583 were excluded. In total, 582 AR and 409 NAR were performed. The median age was 66 years (range 23.8-91.8). Median follow up was 32.2 months (interquartile range 17.5-56.9). The need for postoperative transfusion (11.6% versus 2.2%, P = <0.0001), overall complications (25% versus 10.7%, P < 0.0001) and 90-day mortality (4.9% versus 1.2%, P < 0.0001) was higher in the AR group. R0 and R1 resection rates (AR 26.2% NAR 25%, P = 0.69) and number of patients with intrahepatic recurrence was similar between the two groups (AR 17.5% NAR 22%, P = 0.08). However, the need for redo liver surgery was higher in NAR group 15.4% versus 8.7% (P < 0.001). The OS (NAR 34.1 months versus AR 31.4 months, P = 0.002) and DFS were longer in the NAR group (NAR 18.8 months versus AR 16.9 months, P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

A parenchymal preserving surgery (NAR) is associated with lower complication rates and better OS and DFS when compared with AR without compromising margin status. However, NAR increases the need for repeat liver resections.

Parenchymal-sparing Hepatectomy in Colorectal Liver Metastasis Improves Salvageability and Survival

OBJECTIVE

To investigate prognostic impact of parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis (CLM).

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether PSH confers an oncologic benefit through increased salvageability or is a detriment through increasing recurrence rate.

METHODS

Database of 300 CLM patients with a solitary tumor (≤ 30 mm in size) was reviewed from 1993 to 2013. A total of 156 patients underwent PSH and 144 patients underwent right hepatectomy, left hepatectomy, or left lateral sectionectomy (non-PSH group).

RESULTS

The rate of PSH increased over the study period (P < 0.01). PSH did not impact negatively on overall (OS), recurrence-free, and liver-only recurrence-free survival, compared with non-PSH (P = 0.53, P = 0.97, and P = 0.69, respectively). Liver-only recurrence was observed in 22 patients (14%) in the PSH and 25 (17%) in the non-PSH group (P = 0.44). Repeat hepatectomy was more frequently performed in the PSH group (68% vs 24%, P < 0.01). Subanalysis of patients with liver-only recurrence revealed better 5-year overall survival from initial hepatectomy and from liver recurrence in the PSH than in the non-PSH group [72.4% vs 47.2% (P = 0.047) and 73.6% vs 30.1% (P = 0.018), respectively]. Multivariate analysis revealed that non-PSH was a risk of noncandidacy for repeat hepatectomy (hazard ratio: 8.18, confidence interval: 1.89-45.7, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PSH did not increase recurrence in the liver remnant but more importantly improved 5-year survival in case of recurrence (salvageability). PSH should be the standard approach to CLM to allow for salvage surgery in case of liver recurrence.

Resection of colorectal liver metastases and extra-hepatic disease: a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis of survival outcomes

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for 9.7% of all cancers with 1.4 million new cases diagnosed each year. 19-31% of CRC patients develop colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), and 23-38% develop extra-hepatic disease (EHD). The aim of this systematic review was to determine overall survival (OS) in patients resected for CRLM and known EHD.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies reporting OS after resection for CRLM in the presence of EHD. Proportional meta-analyses and relative risk of death before five years were assessed between patient groups.

RESULTS

A total of 15,144 patients with CRLM (2308 with EHD) from 52 studies were included. Three and 5-year OS were 58% and 26% for lung, 37% and 17% for peritoneum, and 35% and 15% for lymph nodes, respectively. The combined relative risk of death by five years was 1.49 (95% CI = 1.34-1.66) for lung, 1.59 (95% CI = 1.16-2.17) for peritoneal and 1.70 (95% CI = 1.57-1.84) for lymph node EHD, in favour of resection in the absence of EHD.

CONCLUSION

This review supports attempts at R0 resection in selected patients and rejects the notion that EHD is an absolute contraindication to resection.

Anatomy of Hepatic Resectional Surgery

Liver anatomy can be variable, and understanding of anatomic variations is crucial to performing hepatic resections, particularly parenchymal-sparing resections. Anatomic knowledge is a critical prerequisite for effective hepatic resection with minimal blood loss, parenchymal preservation, and optimal oncologic outcome. Each anatomic resection has pitfalls, about which the operating surgeon should be aware and comfortable managing intraoperatively.

Systematic review of outcomes of patients undergoing resection for colorectal liver metastases in the setting of extra hepatic disease

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) can offer patients a significant survival benefit. We hypothesised that patients with CRLM and extra hepatic disease (EHD) undergoing metastasectomy had comparable survival and describe outcomes based on the distribution of metastatic disease.

METHODS

A systematic search using a predefined registered protocol was undertaken between January 2003 and June 2012. Primary exposure was hepatic resection for CRLM and primary outcome measure was overall survival. Meta-regression techniques were used to analyse differences between patients with and without extra hepatic disease.

FINDINGS

From a pool of 4996 articles, 50 were retained for data extraction (3481 CRLM patients with EHD). The median survival (MS) was 30.5 (range, 9-98) months which was achieved with an operative mortality rate of 0-4.2%. The 3-year and 5-year overall survival (OS) were 42.4% (range, 20.6-77%) and 28% (range, 0-61%) respectively. Patients with EHD of the lungs had a MS of 45 (range, 39-98) months versus lymph nodes (portal and para-aortic) 26 (range, 21-48) months versus peritoneum 29 (range, 18-32) months. The MS also varied by the amount of liver disease - 42.2months (<two lesions) versus 39.6months (two lesions) versus 28months (⩾three lesions).

INTERPRETATION

In the evolving landscape of multimodality therapy, selective hepatic resection for CRLM patients with EHD is feasible with potential impact on survival. Patients with minimal liver disease and EHD in the lung achieve the best outcome.

Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors

Background

Hepatic metastases develop in approximately 50% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases. We performed a review and meta-analysis to evaluate survival after resection of CRC liver metastases (CLMs) and estimated the summary effect for seven prognostic factors.

Methods

Studies published between 1999 and 2010, indexed on Medline, that reported survival after resection of CLMs, were reviewed. Meta-relative risks for survival by prognostic factor were calculated, stratified by study size and annual clinic volume. Cumulative meta-analysis results by annual clinic volume were plotted.

Results

Five- and 10-year survival ranged from 16% to 74% (median 38%) and 9% to 69% (median 26%), respectively, based on 60 studies. The overall summary median survival time was 3.6 (range: 1.7–7.3) years. Meta-relative risks (95% confidence intervals) by prognostic factor were: node positive primary, 1.6 (1.5–1.7); carcinoembryonic antigen level, 1.9 (1.1–3.2); extrahepatic disease, 1.9 (1.5–2.4); poor tumor grade, 1.9 (1.3–2.7); positive margin, 2.0 (1.7–2.5); >1 liver metastases, 1.6 (1.4–1.8); and >3 cm tumor diameter, 1.5 (1.3–1.8). Cumulative meta-analyses by annual clinic volume suggested improved survival with increasing volume.

Conclusion

The overall median survival following CLM liver resection was 3.6 years. All seven investigated prognostic factors showed a modest but significant predictive relationship with survival, and certain prognostic factors may prove useful in determining optimal therapeutic options. Due to the increasing complexity of surgical interventions for CLM and the inclusion of patients with higher disease burdens, future studies should consider the potential for selection and referral bias on survival.

Parenchyma-preserving hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Hepatic resection of colorectal liver metastases is the only curative treatment option. As clinical and experimental data indicate that the extent of liver resection correlates with growth of residual metastases, the present study analyzes the potential benefit of a parenchyma-preserving liver surgery approach.

METHODS

Data from a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal metastases were reviewed. Evaluation of outcome was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Correlations were calculated between clinical-pathological variables.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-three patients underwent 198 liver resections for colorectal metastases: 26 major hepatectomies, 65 minor anatomical resections, 78 non-anatomical resections, as well as 29 combinations of minor anatomical and non-anatomical procedures. Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 93%, 62%, and 40%, respectively. Patients with repeated liver resections had a 5-year survival of 27%. Interestingly, large dissection areas were associated with a significant reduction of the 5-year survival rate (33%). Five-year survival after major hepatectomy was not significantly reduced.

CONCLUSION

For colorectal liver metastases, minor resections offer a prolonged survival compared to major hepatectomies. As patients with stage IV colorectal disease are candidates for repeat resections, preservation of hepatic parenchyma is of increasing importance in the setting of multi-modal and repeated therapy approaches.

Liver resection for advanced or aggressive colorectal cancer metastases in the era of effective chemotherapy: a review

Liver surgery has been known to cure metastatic colorectal cancer in a small proportion of patients. However, advances in procedural technique and chemotherapy now allow more patients to have safe, potentially curative surgery. Here we review surgery for unresectable colorectal liver metastases using an expert multidisciplinary approach. With multidisciplinary management of patients with effective chemotherapy that can downstage metastases, more patients with previously inoperable disease can benefit from surgery. Portal vein embolization results in hypertrophy of the future liver remnant; on occasions, combining embolization with staged liver resection permits potentially curative surgery for patients previously unable to survive resection. However, increasing use of chemotherapy has raised awareness of potential hepatotoxicity and other deleterious effects of cytotoxic agents. Prolonged prehepatectomy chemotherapy therefore can reduce resectability even using a 2-stage procedure. Suitable timing of surgery for unresectable liver metastases during chemotherapy is critical. Because of advances in chemotherapy, colorectal cancer, like ovarian cancer, can now show survival benefit from maximum surgical debulking. Benefit from such maximum hepatic debulking surgery for metastatic colorectal disease is uncertain, but likely. Surgery in isolation may be approaching technical limits, but is now likely to help more patients because of the success of complementary strategies, particularly newer chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Expert individualized multidisciplinary treatment planning and problem-solving is essential.

Laparoscopic liver surgery: new frontiers

Laparoscopic liver resection (LHR) has shown classical advantages of minimally invasive surgery over open counterpart. In spite of introduction in early 1990's only few centres worldwide adapted LHR to routine practice. It was due to considerable technical challenges and uncertainty about oncologic outcomes. Surgical instrumentation and accumulation of surgical experience has largely enabled to solve many technical considerations. Intraoperative navigation options have also been improved. Consequently indications have been drastically expanded nearly reaching criteria equal to open liver resection in expert centres. Recent studies have verified oncologic integrity of LHR. However, mastering of LHR is still a quite demanding task limiting expansion of this patient friendly technique. This emphasizes the necessity of systematic training for laparoscopic liver surgery. This article reviews the state of the art of laparoscopic liver surgery lightening burning issues of research and clinical practice.