Outcomes of simultaneous resections for patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases

Pushing boundaries: simultaneous minimal-invasive resection of complex colorectal liver metastases and its primary tumor

INTRODUCTION

Synchronous liver metastases occur in approximately 15-20% of patients with colorectal cancer. Optimal oncological treatment of oligometastatic disease combines surgical resection and systemic therapy. Open simultaneous resection of the primary and liver metastases is well described, but there is not much evidence for the increasing use of the minimally invasive approach. We here report the results of our experience of simultaneous minimally invasive resections.

METHODS

A prospective database of patients with resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin was used for retrospective data analysis. We report all patients undergoing simultaneous minimal invasive resection of colorectal cancer and its synchronous liver metastases between May 2015 and December 2021.

RESULTS

Out of 281 patients undergoing resection of CRLM, 33 (11.7%) patients had simultaneous minimal invasive resection of the colorectal primary. The primary tumor was located mostly within the rectum (n = 17; 48.6%), followed by the descending colon (n = 6; 17.1%). CRLM were localized in both liver lobes in 69.7% (n = 23) of cases. Following resection of the colorectal tumor, an anastomosis was performed in 31 of 33 patients (93.9%), with no anastomotic leakage observed in the follow up. Simultaneous liver resections were performed mostly as subsegment (n = 20) or bisegment resections (n = 11). Mean IWATE-Score of all hepatic resections was 5.5 (± 2.4). Complication rates (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) were similar compared between low/intermediate and advanced/expert difficulty for liver resection (n = 4, 17.4% vs. n = 2, 20.0%; p = 1.0). In one case conversion to open resection was required.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that simultaneous minimal invasive resection of CRLM and the primary tumor is a safe and feasible procedure. Complication rates were consistent across different levels of difficulty (low to expert) in liver resections. Therefore, indications for simultaneous resection may be expanded.

Combined Resection Approaches: Decision Making for Synchronous Resection, Timing of Staged Intervention to Optimize Outcome

Advancement in systemic and regional radiation therapy, surgical technique, and anesthesia has provided a path for increased long-term survival and potential cure for more patients with stage IV rectal cancer in recent years. When patients have resectable disease, the sequence for surgical resection is classified in three strategies: classic, simultaneous, or combined, and reversed. The classic approach consists of rectal cancer resection followed by metastatic disease at a subsequent operation. Simultaneous resection addresses both rectal and metastatic disease in a single surgery. The reversed approach treats metastatic disease first, followed by the primary tumor in several months. Simultaneous resection is appropriate for selected patients to avoid delay of definitive surgery, and reduce number of surgeries, hospital stay, and cost to the health care system. It may also improve patients' psychological effect. Multidisciplinary discussions including colorectal and liver surgeons to review patients' baseline medical conditions, tumor biology and behavior, and disease burden and distribution is imperative to guide proper patient selection for simultaneous resection and perioperative treatments.

Effectiveness of Standard Treatment for Stage 4 Colorectal Cancer: Traditional Management with Surgery, Radiation, and Chemotherapy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States comprising 7.9% of all new cancer diagnoses and 8.6% of all cancer deaths. The combined 5-year relative survival rate for all stages is 65.1% but in its most aggressive form, stage 4 CRC has a 5-year relative survival rate of just 15.1%. For most with stage 4 CRC, treatment is palliative not curative, with the goal to prolong overall survival and maintain an acceptable quality of life. The identification of unique cancer genomic and biologic markers allows patient-specific treatment options. Treatment of stage 4 CRC consists of systemic therapy with chemotherapeutic agents, surgical resection if feasible, potentially including resection of metastasis, palliative radiation in select settings, and targeted therapy toward growth factors. Despite advances in surgical and medical management, metastatic CRC remains a challenging clinical problem associated with poor prognosis and low overall survival.

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.

A comparison of the simultaneous, liver-first, and colorectal-first strategies for surgical treatment of synchronous colorectal liver metastases at two major liver-surgery institutions in Sweden

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment strategy for patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of the simultaneous, liver-first, and colorectal-first surgical approaches.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who had been resected with curative intent for CRLM were included. A Cox regression model was constructed, and an intention-to-treat analysis was performed between the liver-first and the simultaneous approaches, after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

658 patients were included in the analysis. 92 patients had a simultaneous resection, 163 patients had liver-first, and 403 patients had a colorectal-first approach. Overall survival was 54.9 months (95% CI 39.2-70.4) in the liver-first group, 54.5 months (95% CI 46.8-62.3) in colorectal-first group, and 59.6 months (95% CI 42.2-77.0) in the simultaneous group (log-rank p =0.850). In the matched cohort there were no differences in Clavien-Dindo 3a (p = 0.992) or 3b and greater (p = 0.999). Median overall survival was for liver-first group 42.2 months (95% CI 26.3-58.2), and for the simultaneous group 56.2 months (95% CI 47.1-65.4) (stratified log-rank p = 0.455).

CONCLUSION

A simultaneous approach was not associated with worse overall survival or morbidity compared to a liver-first approach.

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).

The Italian Consensus on minimally invasive simultaneous resections for synchronous liver metastasis and primary colorectal cancer: A Delphi methodology

At the time of diagnosis synchronous colorectal cancer, liver metastases (SCRLM) account for 15-25% of patients. If primary tumour and synchronous liver metastases are resectable, good results may be achieved performing surgical treatment incorporated into the chemotherapy regimen. So far, the possibility of simultaneous minimally invasive (MI) surgery for SCRLM has not been extensively investigated. The Italian surgical community has captured the need and undertaken the effort to establish a National Consensus on this topic. Four main areas of interest have been analysed: patients' selection, procedures, techniques, and implementations. To establish consensus, an adapted Delphi method was used through as many reiterative rounds were needed. Systematic literature reviews were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses instructions. The Consensus took place between February 2019 and July 2020. Twenty-six Italian centres participated. Eighteen clinically relevant items were identified. After a total of three Delphi rounds, 30-tree recommendations reached expert consensus establishing the herein presented guidelines. The Italian Consensus on MI surgery for SCRLM indicates possible pathways to optimise the treatment for these patients as consensus papers express a trend that is likely to become shortly a standard procedure for clinical pictures still on debate. As matter of fact, no RCT or relevant case series on simultaneous treatment of SCRLM are available in the literature to suggest guidelines. It remains to be investigated whether the MI technique for the simultaneous treatment of SCRLM maintain the already documented benefit of the two separate surgeries.

Risk scoring system for recurrence after simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer liver metastasis

Background

The simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastasis (SCRLM) has been widely applied. It is necessary to establish a risk scoring system to predict post-operative recurrence, especially in patients with neoadjuvant treatment.

Methods

The medical records of 221 patients undergoing simultaneous resection of CRLM were assessed in this study with a further 128 patients allocated to a validation group. All patients in the study group were classified according to their history of neoadjuvant treatment and univariate and multivariate analyses were applied to study independent risk factors. A score model was then generated according to the factors included. Our data set were also applied to validate three other existing scoring models [Fong clinical recurrence score (CRS), Konopke, and Zakaria disease-free survival (DFS) score], and the concordance index was calculated for comparison among these models.

Results

CRLM involving more than three nodes positive for a primary tumor was considered an independent risk factor for progression in patients without neoadjuvant treatment and all score models could discretely stratify patients according to disease free survival. In patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment, CRLM involving more than one node and transfusion invasion were major determinants in patients after treatment. However, only our scoring system and Fong’s CRS score could discretely discriminate patients. In the validation group, patients were significantly classified with the score system.

Conclusions

Existing score models had better values for determining prognosis in patients with SCRLM, especially in those undertaking neoadjuvant treatment. Larger cohorts, along with more detailed clinical features and multicenter validation should be undertaken before utilization.

Robotic simultaneous resection for colorectal liver metastasis: feasibility for all types of liver resection

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach is increasingly being utilized in simultaneous colorectal and liver resection (SCLR) for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. However, this approach is technically challenging and hence has not been widely adopted. Robotic surgical systems could potentially overcome this problem. We aim to describe the feasibility and outcomes of robotic SCLR for colorectal carcinoma with liver metastasis.

METHODS

The medical records of 12 patients who underwent robotic SCLR for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis between January 2008 and September 2018 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean age was 59 years (range, 37-77 years). The liver resections were comprised of two right hepatectomies, one left hepatectomy, one left lateral sectionectomy, one segmentectomy of S3 and wedge resection (segment 7), one caudate lobectomy, one associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and five wedge resections involving segments 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. The colorectal procedures involved seven low-anterior resections, two anterior resections, two right hemicolectomies, and one left hemicolectomy. The mean operative time was 449 min (range, 135-682 min) with a mean estimated blood loss of 274.3 mL (range, 40-780 mL). The mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (range, 5-28 days). No patients required conversion to laparotomy. Liver resection-related complications were two liver abscesses (Clavien-Dindo classification, one grade II and one grade III) and one case of ascites (grade I), whereas colorectal resection-related complications included one anastomosis leak (grade III) and one superficial wound infection (grade II). There were no deaths reported within 30 days of the procedure. With a mean follow-up duration of 31.5 ± 26.1 months, the overall survival and disease-free survival values were 75.2 and 47.1 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robotic SCLR for colorectal neoplasm with liver metastasis can be performed safely even in cases requiring major liver resections, especially in a specialized center with a well-trained team.

Conversion to resectability using transcatheter arterial chemoembolization alternating with mFOLFOX6 in patients with colorectal liver metastases

Background:

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the world, and about 25% of colorectal cancer patients present with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) even at new diagnosis. The study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) alternating with mFOLFOX6 in Chinese patients with unresectable CRCLM.

Materials and Methods:

In this study, by combining the systemic and regional treatment, the resectability rate, overall survival, and progression-free survival were measured with addition of TACE. Included patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. Sixty-two patients received mFOLFOX6 plus one TACE after 2 weeks of chemotherapy; after 2 weeks, the next periodical treatment repeated. Patients received operation when the liver metastases were converted to resectability or severe tumor-associated complications occurred.

Results:

We found that 28 patients (45.2%) patients received operation after the treatment of TACE combined with systemic chemotherapy. The median time from initial treatment to the operation was 6 months. The median follow-up period was 41 months in all the patients. The 3-year survival rate of resected patients and unresected patients was 54% and 17%, respectively. Post-TACE syndrome was the major adverse reaction (81%). Other adverse reactions were neutropenia, nausea, and neurotoxicity. No patient died of the adverse reactions. The resection rate was related to hepatic segments and vasculature involvement.

Conclusion:

Taken together, TACE alternating with mFOLFOX6 has been proved to be safe and effective for CRCLM treatment to improve resection rate and prolong the survival time.

Primary Tumor Versus Liver-First Approach for Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases: An Association Française de Chirurgie (AFC) Multicenter-Based Study with Propensity Score Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Multicenter studies comparing the reverse strategy (RS) with the classical strategy (CS) for the management of stage IVA liver-only colorectal cancer (CCR) are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival and recurrence patterns following use of the CS and RS.

METHOD

This retrospective multicenter review collected data from all consecutive patients with stage IVA liver-only CCR who underwent staged resection of CCR and liver metastases (LM) at 24 French hospitals between 2006 and 2013 and were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who underwent simultaneous liver and CCR resection, those with synchronous extrahepatic metastasis, and those who underwent emergent CCR resection were excluded. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates and recurrence patterns were investigated before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 653 patients were included: 587 (89.9%) in the CS group and 66 (10.1%) in the RS group. Compared with the CS patients, RS patients were more likely to have rectal cancer (43.9 vs. 24.9%; p = 0.006), larger liver tumor size (52.5 ± 38.6 vs. 39.6 ± 30 mm; p = 0.01), and more positive lymph nodes (62.1 vs. 44.8%; p = 0.009). OS was not different between the two groups (75 vs. 72% at 5 years; p = 0.77), while RFS was worse in the RS group (24 vs. 33% at 5 years; p = 0.01). Time to recurrence at any site (1.8 vs. 2.4 years, p = 0.024) and intrahepatic recurrence (1.7 vs. 2.2 years, p = 0.014) were significantly shorter in the RS group than in the CS group. After PSM (63 patients in each group), no significant difference was found between the two groups in OS (p = 0.35), RFS (p = 0.62), time to recurrence at any site (p = 0.19), or intrahepatic recurrence (p = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, approximately 10% of patients with CCR and synchronous LM were offered surgery with the RS. Both strategies ensured similar oncological outcomes.

Safety evaluation of simultaneous resection of colorectal primary tumor and liver metastasis after neoadjuvant therapy: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the surgical safety and perioperative complications, simultaneous resection after neoadjuvant therapy is not commonly recommended.

METHODS

A total of 253 patients were included in study. Comparison of the short-term outcomes was performed after propensity score adjustment in Group A (n = 96) and Group B (neoadjuvant therapy, n = 96).

RESULTS

There was no postoperative mortality. After matching, the differences from surgical confounders were well-balanced. Morbidity (15.6% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.981), and Clavien-Dindo grade of complications (p = 0.710) were similar. No difference was found when the complications were divided according to the origin (general, colorectal and hepatic). Length of the hospital stays also did not differ between the groups (p = 0.482). More importantly, there was no increase in the number of patients with delayed adjuvant treatment after surgery in Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant treatment did not increase morbidity, length of hospital stays and influence adjuvant treatment after simultaneous resection.

Centralization of Liver Cancer Surgery and Impact on Multidisciplinary Teams Working on Stage IV Colorectal Cancer

Surgical resection is the most effective treatment approach for colorectal liver metastases but only a minority of patients is suitable for upfront surgery. The treatment strategies of stage IV colorectal cancer have shifted towards a continuum of care in which medical and surgical treatment combinations are tailored to the clinical setting of the individual patient. The optimization of treatment through appropriate decision-making and multimodal therapy for stage IV colorectal cancer require a joint multidisciplinary meeting in a centralized liver cancer unit.

Surgery for Colorectal Cancer - Trends, Developments, and Future Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Although colorectal surgery is long established as the mainstay treatment for colon cancer, certain topics regarding technical fine-tuning to increase postsurgical recurrence-free survival have remained a matter of debate throughout the past years. These include complete mesocolic excision (CME), treatment strategies for metastatic disease, significance of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and surgical techniques for the treatment of colorectal cancer recurrence. In addition, new surgical techniques have been introduced in oncologic colorectal surgery, and their potential to provide sufficiently radical resection has yet to be proven.

METHODS

A structured review of the literature was performed to identify the current state of the art with regard to the mentioned key issues in colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

This article provides a comprehensive review of the current literature addressing the above-mentioned current challenges in colorectal surgery. The focus lies on the impact of CME and, in relation to this, on lymph node dissection, as well as on treatment of metastatic disease including peritoneal spread, and finally on the treatment of recurrent disease.

CONCLUSION

Uniformly, the current literature reveals that surgery aiming at complete malignancy elimination within multimodal treatment approaches represents the fundamental quantum leap for the achievement of long-term tumor-free survival.

Managing synchronous liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a multidisciplinary international consensus

An international panel of multidisciplinary experts convened to develop recommendations for managing patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous liver metastases (CRCLM). A modified Delphi method was used. CRCLM is defined as liver metastases detected at or before diagnosis of the primary CRC. Early and late metachronous metastases are defined as those detected ⩽12months and >12months after surgery, respectively. To provide information on potential curability, use of high-quality contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) before chemotherapy is recommended. Magnetic resonance imaging is increasingly being used preoperatively to aid detection of subcentimetric metastases, and alongside CT in difficult situations. To evaluate operability, radiology should provide information on: nodule size and number, segmental localization and relationship with major vessels, response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-tumoral liver condition and anticipated remnant liver volume. Pathological evaluation should assess response to preoperative chemotherapy for both the primary tumour and metastases, and provide information on the tumour, margin size and micrometastases. Although the treatment strategy depends on the clinical scenario, the consensus was for chemotherapy before surgery in most cases. When the primary CRC is asymptomatic, liver surgery may be performed first (reverse approach). When CRCLM are unresectable, the goal of preoperative chemotherapy is to downsize tumours to allow resection. Hepatic resection should not be denied to patients with stable disease after optimal chemotherapy, provided an adequate liver remnant with inflow and outflow preservation remains. All patients with synchronous CRCLM should be evaluated by a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary team.

Strategies for Management of Synchronous Colorectal Metastases

The management of synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases has long been a topic of debate and discussion for surgeons due to the unique dilemma of balancing operative timing along with treatment strategy. Operative strategies for resection include staged resection with colon first approach, "reverse" staged resection with liver metastases resected first, and one-stage, or simultaneous, resection of both the primary tumor and liver metastases approach. These operative strategies can be further augmented with perioperative chemotherapy and other novel approaches that may improve resectability and patient survival. The decision on operative timing and approach, however, remains largely dependent on the surgeon's determination of disease resectability, patient fitness, and the need for neoadjuvant chemotherapy.