Outcomes of Resectability Assessment of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group Liver Metastases Expert Panel

Resectability assessment of colorectal liver metastases by an expert panel: Potential impact on hospitals referring patients for local treatment

BACKGROUND

Patients with colorectal liver-only metastases (CRLM) eligible for local treatment (resection/ablation) do not always receive this potentially curative treatment due to the lack of clear resectability criteria and expertise in centres not performing liver surgery. We evaluated the potential value of a liver expert panel in daily practice.

METHODS

All patients with CRLM starting with systemic treatment in centres not performing liver surgery between 2016 and 2020 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. A panel of liver surgeons retrospectively re-evaluated patients' imaging for resectability before and two-monthly during systemic treatment.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were included from 24 hospitals requiring a total of 544 resectability assessments by individual panel surgeons. The panel considered 18 (29 %) patients to have resectable CRLM before starting systemic treatment, which increased to 43 (68 %) after up to three evaluations. Eighteen (29 %) patients considered resectable by the panel at any time received no local treatment of whom 9 (50 %) were not referred to a liver surgeon.

CONCLUSION

In non-liver-surgery centres, over a quarter of patients technically eligible for local treatment of initially unresectable CRLM, sometimes mistakenly categorised as such, did not receive this. This stresses the need for liver expert panels in daily practice to increase local treatment rates.

Intersurgeon Variability in Local Treatment Planning for Patients with Initially Unresectable Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Analysis of the Liver Expert Panel of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group

BACKGROUND

Consensus on resectability criteria for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) is lacking, resulting in differences in therapeutic strategies. This study evaluated variability of resectability assessments and local treatment plans for patients with initially unresectable CRLM by the liver expert panel from the randomised phase III CAIRO5 study.

METHODS

The liver panel, comprising surgeons and radiologists, evaluated resectability by predefined criteria at baseline and 2-monthly thereafter. If surgeons judged CRLM as resectable, detailed local treatment plans were provided. The panel chair determined the conclusion of resectability status and local treatment advice, and forwarded it to local surgeons.

RESULTS

A total of 1149 panel evaluations of 496 patients were included. Intersurgeon disagreement was observed in 50% of evaluations and was lower at baseline than follow-up (36% vs. 60%, p < 0.001). Among surgeons in general, votes for resectable CRLM at baseline and follow-up ranged between 0-12% and 27-62%, and for permanently unresectable CRLM between 3-40% and 6-47%, respectively. Surgeons proposed different local treatment plans in 77% of patients. The most pronounced intersurgeon differences concerned the advice to proceed with hemihepatectomy versus parenchymal-preserving approaches. Eighty-four percent of patients judged by the panel as having resectable CRLM indeed received local treatment. Local surgeons followed the technical plan proposed by the panel in 40% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Considerable variability exists among expert liver surgeons in assessing resectability and local treatment planning of initially unresectable CRLM. This stresses the value of panel-based decisions, and the need for consensus guidelines on resectability criteria and technical approach to prevent unwarranted variability in clinical practice.

First-line systemic treatment strategies in patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (CAIRO5): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study from the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group

BACKGROUND

Patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases might qualify for local treatment with curative intent after reducing the tumour size by induction systemic treatment. We aimed to compare the currently most active induction regimens.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study (CAIRO5), patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, known RAS/BRAFV600E mutation status, WHO performance status of 0-1, and initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases were enrolled at 46 Dutch and one Belgian secondary and tertiary centres. Resectability or unresectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases was assessed centrally by an expert panel of liver surgeons and radiologists, at baseline and every 2 months thereafter by predefined criteria. Randomisation was done centrally with the minimisation technique via a masked web-based allocation procedure. Patients with right-sided primary tumour site or RAS or BRAFV600E mutated tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (group A) or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (group B). Patients with left-sided and RAS and BRAFV600E wild-type tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (group C) or FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab (group D), every 14 days for up to 12 cycles. Patients were stratified by resectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases, serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, choice of irinotecan versus oxaliplatin, and BRAFV600E mutation status (for groups A and B). Bevacizumab was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg. Panitumumab was administered intravenously at 6 mg/kg. FOLFIRI consisted of intravenous infusion of irinotecan at 180 mg/m2 with folinic acid at 400 mg/m2, followed by bolus fluorouracil at 400 mg/m2 intravenously, followed by continuous infusion of fluorouracil at 2400 mg/m2. FOLFOX consisted of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m2 intravenously together with the same schedule of folinic acid and fluorouracil as in FOLFIRI. FOLFOXIRI consisted of irinotecan at 165 mg/m2 intravenously, followed by intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m2 with folinic acid at 400 mg/m2, followed by continuous infusion of fluorouracil at 3200 mg/m2. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding patients who withdrew consent before starting study treatment or violated major entry criteria (no metastatic colorectal cancer, or previous liver surgery for colorectal cancer liver metastases). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02162563, and accrual is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 13, 2014, and Jan 31, 2022, 530 patients (327 [62%] male and 203 [38%] female; median age 62 years [IQR 54-69]) were randomly assigned: 148 (28%) patients to group A, 146 (28%) patients to group B, 118 (22%) patients to group C, and 118 (22%) patients to group D. Groups C and D were prematurely closed for futility. 521 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (147 in group A, 144 in group B, 114 in group C, and 116 in group D). The median follow-up at the time of this analysis was 51·1 months (95% CI 47·7-53·1) in groups A and B and 49·9 months (44·5-52·5) in in groups C and D. Median progression-free survival was 9·0 months (95% CI 7·7-10·5) in group A versus 10·6 months (9·9-12·1) in group B (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·76 [95% CI 0·60-0·98]; p=0·032), and 10·8 months (95% CI 9·9-12·6) in group C versus 10·4 months (9·8-13·0) in group D (stratified HR 1·11 [95% CI 0·84-1·48]; p=0·46). The most frequent grade 3-4 events in groups A and B were neutropenia (19 [13%] patients in group A vs 57 [40%] in group B; p<0·0001), hypertension (21 [14%] vs 20 [14%]; p=1·00), and diarrhoea (five [3%] vs 28 [19%]; p<0·0001), and in groups C and D were neutropenia (29 [25%] vs 24 [21%]; p=0·44), skin toxicity (one [1%] vs 29 [25%]; p<0·0001), hypertension (20 [18%] vs eight [7%]; p=0·016), and diarrhoea (five [4%] vs 18 [16%]; p=0·0072). Serious adverse events occurred in 46 (31%) patients in group A, 75 (52%) patients in group B, 41 (36%) patients in group C, and 49 (42%) patients in group D. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported in group B (two due to multiorgan failure, and one each due to sepsis, pneumonia, portal vein thrombosis, septic shock and liver failure, and sudden death), one in group C (multiorgan failure), and three in group D (cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, and abdominal sepsis).

INTERPRETATION

In patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases, FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab was the preferred treatment in patients with a right-sided or RAS or BRAFV600E mutated primary tumour. In patients with a left-sided and RAS and BRAFV600E wild-type tumour, the addition of panitumumab to FOLFOX or FOLFIRI showed no clinical benefit over bevacizumab, but was associated with more toxicity.

FUNDING

Roche and Amgen.

Improving Outcome of Selected Patients With Non-Resectable Hepatic Metastases From Colorectal Cancer With Liver Transplantation: A Prospective Parallel Trial (COLT trial)

BACKGROUND

Patients with unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases (CLM) receiving palliative chemotherapy have a 5-year overall survival (OS) of less than 30%. Liver transplantation (LT) can improve OS up to 60%-83% (SECA-I and SECA-II trials). The aim of the study is to assess the efficacy of LT in liver-only metastatic CRC compared with a matched cohort of patients included in a phase III trial on triplet chemotherapy + antiEGFR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The COLT trial is an investigator-driven, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, controlled, prospective, parallel trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03803436). Hyperselected patients with liver-limited unresectable CLM, RAS and BRAF wild-type and curatively removed primary colon cancer are included. The observed post-transplant outcomes will be prospectively compared 1:5 with those obtained in a matched cohort from the TRIPLETE trial (NCT03231722).

RESULTS

Primary endpoint is to compare the 3 and 5-years OS of patients enrolled in the COLT trial with COLT-eligible population enrolled in the TRIPLETE trial. An expected gain in OS of 40% at 5-years is predicted for the COLT population (the expected OS at 5-years in COLT vs. TRIPLETE is 70% vs. 30%). Secondary endpoints are to compare the 5-years disease-free survival and to assess the safety of LT (Dindo-Clavien Classification and the Comprehensive Complication Index).

CONCLUSION

LT offers the longest OS reported in selected patients with CLM. Improving the selection strategies can give patients a 5-year OS similar to other indications for LT and a better outcome than those undergoing chemotherapy alone.

The role of tumour biological factors in technical anatomical resectability assessment of colorectal liver metastases following induction systemic treatment: An analysis of the Dutch CAIRO5 trial

BACKGROUND

Large inter-surgeon variability exists in technical anatomical resectability assessment of colorectal cancer liver-only metastases (CRLM) following induction systemic therapy. We evaluated the role of tumour biological factors in predicting resectability and (early) recurrence after surgery for initially unresectable CRLM.

METHODS

482 patients with initially unresectable CRLM from the phase 3 CAIRO5 trial were selected, with two-monthly resectability assessments by a liver expert panel. If no consensus existed among panel surgeons (i.e. same vote for (un)resectability of CRLM), conclusion was based on majority. The association of tumour biological (sidedness, synchronous CRLM, carcinoembryonic antigen and RAS/BRAF^V600E mutation status) and technical anatomical factors with consensus among panel surgeons, secondary resectability and early recurrence (<6 months) without curative-intent repeat local treatment was analysed by uni- and pre-specified multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

After systemic treatment, 240 (50%) patients received complete local treatment of CRLM of which 75 (31%) patients experienced early recurrence without repeat local treatment. Higher number of CRLM (odds ratio 1.09 [95% confidence interval 1.03-1.15]) and age (odds ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval 1.00-1.07]) were independently associated with early recurrence without repeat local treatment. In 138 (52%) patients, no consensus among panel surgeons was present prior to local treatment. Postoperative outcomes in patients with and without consensus were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost a third of patients selected by an expert panel for secondary CRLM surgery following induction systemic treatment experience an early recurrence only amenable to palliative treatment. Number of CRLM and age, but no tumour biological factors are predictive, suggesting that until there are better biomarkers; resectability assessment remains primarily a technical anatomical decision.

Protocol for the CoNoR Study: A prospective multi-step study of the potential added benefit of two novel assessment tools in colorectal liver metastases technical resectability decision-making

INTRODUCTION

Liver resection is the only curative treatment for colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Resectability decision-making is therefore a key determinant of outcomes. Wide variation has been demonstrated in resectability decision-making, despite the existence of criteria. This paper summarises a study protocol to evaluate the potential added value of two novel assessment tools in assessing CLM technical resectability: the Hepatica preoperative MR scan (MR-based volumetry, Couinaud segmentation, liver tissue characteristics and operative planning tool) and the LiMAx test (hepatic functional capacity).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study uses a systematic multistep approach, whereby three preparatory workstreams aid the design of the final international case-based scenario survey:Workstream 1: systematic literature review of published resectability criteria.Workstream 2: international hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) interviews.Workstream 3: international HPB questionnaire.Workstream 4: international HPB case-based scenario survey.The primary outcome measures are change in resectability decision-making and change in planned operative strategy, resulting from the novel test results. Secondary outcome measures are variability in CLM resectability decision-making and opinions on the role for novel tools.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has been approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee and registered with the Health Research Authority. Dissemination will be via international and national conferences. Manuscripts will be published.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

The CoNoR Study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (registration number NCT04270851). The systematic review is registered on the PROSPERO database (registration number CRD42019136748).

Liver Transplantation for Hepatic Metastases from Colorectal Cancer: Current Knowledge and Open Issues

More than 40% of patients with colorectal cancer present liver metastases (CRLM) during the course of their disease and up to 50% present with unresectable disease. Without surgical interventions, survival for patients treated with systemic therapies alone is dismal. In the past, liver transplantation (LT) for patients with unresectable CRLM failed to show any survival benefit due to poor selection, ineffective chemotherapeutic regimens, unbalanced immunosuppression and high perioperative mortality. Since then and for many years LT for CRLM was abandoned. The turning point occurred in 2013, when the results from the Secondary Cancer (SECA I) pilot study performed at Oslo University were published reporting a 60% 5-year overall survival after LT in patients with unresectable CRLM. These results effectively reignited the interest in LT as a potential therapy for CRLM, and several trials are undergoing. The aims of this article are to give a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on LT for CRLM, discuss the open issues in this rapidly evolving field, and highlight possible ways to address the future of this fascinating therapeutic alternative for selected patients with CRLM.

Interregional practice variations in the use of local therapy for synchronous colorectal liver metastases in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the Dutch regional practice variation in treatment of synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) over time and assess their impact on patients survival.

METHODS

Two cohorts of patients with synchronous CRLM were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). All patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 were selected to analyze interregional practice variations in local therapy (LT) with multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival (OS) was assessed for patients diagnosed from 2008 to 2013 using Kaplan Meier method and Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients who underwent LT increased from 15.5% to 21.9%. Interregional use of LT varied from 19.1% to 25.0%. Multivariable logistic regression showed significant differences between regions in the use of LT (p = 0.001) in 2014-2018. There was no association between OS and region of diagnosis for patients who underwent LT after correction for confounders.The use of LT for CRLM increased from 15.5% in 2008-2013 to 21.9% in 2014-2018. Three-year OS increased from 16% to 19% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Interregional practice variations have decreased. The remaining differences are not associated with OS. The use of local therapy and 3-year overall survival have increased over time. Local practice should be monitored to prevent undesirable variation in outcomes.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves overall survival in resectable colorectal liver metastases patients with high clinical risk scores—— A retrospective, propensity score matching analysis

Background

The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) patients is controversial. High-risk patients are more likely to benefit from NAC despite its hepatotoxic effects. Since patients with a high tumor burden receive NAC more frequently, previous retrospective studies have imbalanced baseline characteristics. The results of randomized controlled trials are still pending. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of NAC in resectable CRLM patients with high clinical risk scores (CRS) proposed by Fong et al. after balancing baseline characteristics by propensity score matching (PSM).

Methods

Resectable CRLM patients with high CRS (3-5) undergoing hepatectomy between January 2003 and May 2021 were retrospectively studied. Patients were divided into the NAC and the upfront surgery group. Survival outcomes and surgical outcomes were compared after PSM.

Results

The current study included 322 patients with a median follow-up of 40 months. After one-to-two PSM, patients were matched into the upfront surgery group (n = 56) and the NAC group (n = 112). Baseline characteristics were balanced after matching. There was no difference in long-term progression-free survival (PFS), while overall survival (OS) from the initial diagnosis was improved in the NAC group (P = 0.048). Postoperative hospital stays were shorter in the NAC group (P = 0.020). Surgical outcomes were similar, including major hepatectomy rate, intraoperative ablation rate, blood loss, operative time, perioperative blood transfusion, positive surgical margin, and postoperative intensive care unit stay. In multivariable analysis, RAS mutation, maximum tumor diameter≥3cm, and no NAC were independent risk factors for OS. The 1-year PFS in the NAC group was improved, although it failed to reach a statistical difference (P = 0.064).

Conclusions

NAC could improve OS in resectable CRLM patients with high CRS (3-5) and have a shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Tumors located in the central column of the liver are associated with increased surgical difficulty and postoperative complications following open liver resection for colorectal metastases

BACKGROUND

To assess the impact of difficult location (based on preoperative computed tomography) of liver metastases from colorectal cancer (LMCRC) on surgical difficulty, and occurrence of severe postoperative complications (POCs).

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre study of 911 consecutive patients with LMCRC who underwent hepatectomy by the open approach between 1998 and 2011, before implementation of laparoscopic surgery to obviate approach selection bias. LMCRC with at least one of the following four features on preoperative imaging: tumor invading the hepatocaval confluence or retro-hepatic inferior vena cava, centrally located (Segments 4,5,8) and >10 cm in diameter, abutting the supra-hilar area, or involving the paracaval portion or caudate process of Segment 1; were considered as topographically difficult (top-diff). Independent predictors of surgical difficulty assessed by number of blood units transfused, duration of ischemia, and number of sessions of pedicle clamping during surgery and of severe POCs were identified by multivariate analysis before, and after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Top-diff tumor location independently predicted surgical difficulty. Severe POCs were associated with the tumor location [top-diff vs. topographically non difficult (non top-diff)], preoperative portal vein embolization, and variables related to surgical difficulty.

CONCLUSION

LMCRC in difficult location independently predicts surgical difficulty and severe POCs.

Long-Term Outcomes of Perioperative Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: An International Multicentre Propensity-Score Matched Analysis with Stratification by Contemporary Risk-Scoring

BACKGROUND

There is still debate regarding the principal role and ideal timing of perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) for patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study assesses long-term oncological outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant CTx only versus those receiving neoadjuvant combined with adjuvant therapy (perioperative CTx).

METHODS

International multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM undergoing liver resection between 2010 and 2015. Characteristics and outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Primary endpoints were long-term oncological outcomes, such as recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Furthermore, stratification by the tumour burden score (TBS) was applied.

RESULTS

Of 967 patients undergoing hepatectomy, 252 were analysed, with a median follow-up of 45 months. The unmatched comparison revealed a bias towards patients with neoadjuvant CTx presenting with more high-risk patients (p = 0.045) and experiencing increased postoperative complications ≥Clavien-Dindo III (20.9% vs. 8%, p = 0.003). Multivariable analysis showed that perioperative CTx was associated with significantly improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.579, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.420-0.800, p = 0.001) and OS (HR 0.579, 95% CI 0.403-0.834, p = 0.003). After PSM (n = 180 patients), the two groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristics. The perioperative CTx group presented with a significantly prolonged RFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.76, p = 0.007) and OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.87, p = 0.010) in both low and high TBS patients.

CONCLUSIONS

When patients after resection of CRLM are able to tolerate additional postoperative CTx, a perioperative strategy demonstrates increased RFS and OS in comparison with neoadjuvant CTx only in both low and high-risk situations.

Resectability, conversion, metastasectomy and outcome according to RAS and BRAF status for metastatic colorectal cancer in the prospective RAXO study

Background

Outcomes after metastasectomy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) vary with RAS and BRAF mutational status, but their effects on resectability and conversion rates have not been extensively studied.

Methods

This substudy of the prospective RAXO trial included 906 patients recruited between 2011 and 2018. We evaluated repeated centralised resectability assessment, conversion/resection rates and overall survival (OS), according to RAS and BRAF status.

Results

Patients included 289 with RAS and BRAF wild-type (RAS and BRAFwt), 529 with RAS mutated (RASmt) and 88 with BRAF mutated (BRAFmt) mCRC. Metastatic prevalence varied between the RAS and BRAFwt/RASmt/BRAFmt groups, for liver (78%/74%/61%), lung (24%/35%/28%) and peritoneal (15%/15%/32%) metastases, respectively. Upfront resectability (32%/29%/15%), conversion (16%/13%/7%) and resection/local ablative therapy (LAT) rates (45%/37%/17%) varied for RASa and BRAFwt/RASmt/BRAFmt, respectively. Median OS for patients treated with resection/LAT (n = 342) was 83/69/30 months, with 5-year OS-rates of 67%/60%/24%, while systemic therapy-only patients (n = 564) had OS of 29/21/15 months with 5-year OS-rates of 11%/6%/2% in RAS and BRAFwt/RASmt/BRAFmt, respectively. Resection/LAT was associated with improved OS in all subgroups.

Conclusions

There were significant differences in resectability, conversion and resection/LAT rates according to RAS and BRAF status. OS was also significantly longer for RAS and BRAFwt versus either mutant. Patients only receiving systemic therapy had poorer long-term survival, with variation according to molecular status.

Clinical trial registration

NCT01531621/EudraCT2011-003158-24

[Oncological surgery in the interdisciplinary context-On the way to personalized medicine]

Oncological surgery is a discipline which closely interacts with other clinical partners and remains in many cases the cornerstone of a curative treatment of solid tumors. Due to the progress in the field of systemic tumor treatment as well as innovations in surgical techniques, the indications in oncological surgery are also changing, such as extended indications for patients with oligometastatic disease. Surgery of metastases has long been established for colorectal cancer and is being further tested for other entities, such as pancreatic and gastric cancer, within randomized controlled clinical trials (e.g. RENAISSANCE and METAPANC). A new challenge is the handling of a clinical complete remission after total neoadjuvant therapy, for example in locally advanced rectal cancer or in esophageal cancer. Here, organ and function preservation are increasingly propagated but should only be performed within clinical trials until stratification enables the identification of patients in whom this concept is oncologically safe. The personalized use of oncological surgery is dependent on the patient, the tumor and on the total multimodal concept.

[Guideline-based thermal ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma]

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is fifth most common cancer worldwide. The German S3 guideline on the diagnosis and the treatment of hepatocellular and biliary carcinoma was recently revised.

OBJECTIVE

Determination of the current status of thermal ablation in HCC according to the German S3 guideline.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on the current guideline and a selective literature search, the current status on indication and application of thermal ablation in HCC was revisited.

RESULTS

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) provide similar survival when compared with surgery. Accordingly, RFA und MWA are considered first-line treatments for HCCs ≤ 3 cm in cirrhotic livers. For HCCs with diameters of 3-5 cm, a combination of transarterial chemoembolization and thermal ablation is recommended.

CONCLUSION

The current S3 guideline on diagnosis and treatment of HCC comprises relevant changes regarding thermal ablation in HCC. The overall role of interventional oncology procedures in the treatment of HCC was reinforced.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by resection/ablation in stage IV rectal cancer patients with potentially resectable metastases

Background

The optimal treatment of stage IV rectal cancer remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to assess the treatment outcomes and toxicity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by local treatment of all tumor sites and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IV rectal cancer patients with potentially resectable metastases.

Methods

Adult patients diagnosed with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma with potentially resectable metastases, who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy from July 2013 and September 2019 at Sun Yat-sen University cancer center, were included. Completion of the whole treatment schedule, pathological response, treatment-related toxicity and survival were evaluated.

Results

A total of 228 patients were analyzed with a median follow-up of 33 (range 3.3 to 93.4) months. Eventually, 112 (49.1%) patients finished the whole treatment schedule, of which complete response of all tumor sites and pathological downstaging of the rectal tumor were observed in three (2.7%) and 90 (80.4%) patients. The three-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of all patients were 56.6% (50.2 to 63.9%) and 38.6% (95% CI 32.5 to 45.8%), respectively. For patients who finished the treatment schedule, 3-year OS (74.4% vs 39.2%, P < 0.001) and 3-year PFS (45.5% vs 30.5%, P = 0.004) were significantly improved compared those who did not finish the treatment. Grade 3–4 chem-radiotherapy treatment toxicities were observed in 51 (22.4%) of all patients and surgical complications occurred in 22 (9.6%) of 142 patients who underwent surgery, respectively.

Conclusions

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by resection/ablation and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy offered chances of long-term survival with tolerable toxicities for selected patients with potentially resectable stage IV rectal cancer, and could be considered as an option in clinical practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-09089-5.

Treatment of metachronous colorectal cancer metastases in the Netherlands: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe the treatment of metachronous colorectal cancer metastases in a recent population-based cohort.

METHOD

Patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer (CRC), diagnosed between January 1st and June 30th^, 2015 who were surgically treated with curative intent were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Follow-up was at least 3 years after diagnosis of the primary tumour. Treatment of metachronous metastases was categorized into local treatment, systemic treatment, and best supportive care. Overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Out of 5412 patients, 782 (14%) developed metachronous metastases, of whom 393 (50%) underwent local treatment (LT) with or without systemic therapy, 30% of patients underwent only systemic therapy (ST) and 19% only best supportive care (BSC). The most common metastatic site was the liver (51%) followed by lungs (33%) and peritoneum (22%). LT rates were 69%, 66%, and 44% for liver-only, lung-only and, peritoneal-only metastases respectively. Patients receiving LT and ST were significantly younger than patients receiving LT alone, while patients receiving BSC were significantly older than the other groups (p < 0.001). Patients with liver-only or lung-only metastases had a 3-year OS of 50.2% (43.3-56.7 95% CI) and 61.5% (50.7-70.6 95% CI) respectively. Patients with peritoneal-only disease had a lower 3-year OS, 18.1% (10.1-28.0 95% CI).

CONCLUSION

Patients with metastases confined to the liver and lung have the highest rates of local treatment for metachronous metastatic colorectal cancer. The number of patients who underwent local treatment is higher than reported in previous Dutch and international studies.

The Prognostic Value of Total Tumor Volume Response Compared With RECIST1.1 in Patients With Initially Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases Undergoing Systemic Treatment

Objectives

Compare total tumor volume (TTV) response after systemic treatment to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST1.1) and assess the prognostic value of TTV change and RECIST1.1 for recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with colorectal liver-only metastases (CRLM).

Background

RECIST1.1 provides unidimensional criteria to evaluate tumor response to systemic therapy. Those criteria are accepted worldwide but are limited by interobserver variability and ignore potentially valuable information about TTV.

Methods

Patients with initially unresectable CRLM receiving systemic treatment from the randomized, controlled CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) were included. TTV response was assessed using software specifically developed together with SAS analytics. Baseline and follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans were used to calculate RECIST1.1 and TTV response to systemic therapy. Different thresholds (10%, 20%, 40%) were used to define response of TTV as no standard currently exists. RFS was assessed in a subgroup of patients with secondarily resectable CRLM after induction treatment.

Results

A total of 420 CT scans comprising 7820 CRLM in 210 patients were evaluated. In 30% to 50% (depending on chosen TTV threshold) of patients, discordance was observed between RECIST1.1 and TTV change. A TTV decrease of >40% was observed in 47 (22%) patients who had stable disease according to RECIST1.1. In 118 patients with secondarily resectable CRLM, RFS was shorter for patients with less than 10% TTV decrease compared with patients with more than 10% TTV decrease (P = 0.015), while RECIST1.1 was not prognostic (P = 0.821).

Conclusions

TTV response assessment shows prognostic potential in the evaluation of systemic therapy response in patients with CRLM.

Tailored Systemic Therapy for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases

Liver metastases are the most common site of metastatic spread in colorectal cancer. Current treatment approaches involve effective systemic therapies in combination with surgical and/or interventional strategies. Multimodal strategies greatly improved clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer over the last decades. Identification of predictive and prognostic biomarkers helped to comprehensively refine individual targeted treatment approaches and resulted in median overall survival rates of 30 months or longer. Current guidelines, thus, recommend treatment selection according to patients' performance status, tumor localization and stage as well as the tumor's molecular and genetic status. Here, we outline the latest developments in molecular decision-making for patients with upfront resectable, potentially or initially unresectable and non/never-resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases.

Nationwide oncological networks for resection of colorectal liver metastases in the Netherlands: Differences and postoperative outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Widespread differences in patient demographics and disease burden between hospitals for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have been described. In the Netherlands, networks consisting of at least one tertiary referral centre and several regional hospitals have been established to optimize treatment and outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess variation in case-mix, and outcomes between these networks.

METHODS

This was a population-based study including all patients who underwent CRLM resection in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2019. Variation in case-mix and outcomes between seven networks covering the whole country was evaluated. Differences in case-mix, expected 30-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a) and 30-day mortality between networks were assessed.

RESULTS

In total 5383 patients were included. Thirty-day major morbidity was 5.7% and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. Significant differences between networks were observed for Charlson Comorbidity Index, ASA 3+, previous liver resection, liver disease, preoperative MRI, preoperative chemotherapy, ≥3 CRLM, diameter of largest CRLM ≥55 mm, major resection, combined resection and ablation, rectal primary tumour, bilobar and extrahepatic disease. Uncorrected 30-day major morbidity ranged between 3.3% and 13.1% for hospitals, 30-day mortality ranged between 0.0% and 4.5%. Uncorrected 30-day major morbidity ranged between 4.4% and 6.0% for networks, 30-day mortality ranged between 0.0% and 2.5%. No negative outliers were observed after case-mix correction.

CONCLUSION

Variation in case-mix and outcomes are considerably smaller on a network level as compared to a hospital level. Therefore, auditing is more meaningful at a network level and collaboration of hospitals within networks should be pursued.

Short-Term Outcomes of Secondary Liver Surgery for Initially Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases Following Modern Induction Systemic Therapy in the Dutch CAIRO5 Trial

Objective

To present short-term outcomes of liver surgery in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) downsized by chemotherapy plus targeted agents.

Background

The increase of complex hepatic resections of CRLM, technical innovations pushing boundaries of respectability, and use of intensified induction systemic regimens warrant for safety data in a homogeneous multicenter prospective cohort.

Methods

Patients with initially unresectable CRLM, who underwent complete resection after induction systemic regimens with doublet or triplet chemotherapy, both plus targeted therapy, were selected from the ongoing phase III CAIRO5 study (NCT02162563). Short-term outcomes and risk factors for severe postoperative morbidity (Clavien Dindo grade ≥ 3) were analyzed using logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 173 patients underwent resection of CRLM after induction systemic therapy. The median number of metastases was 9 and 161 (93%) patients had bilobar disease. Thirty-six (20.8%) 2-stage resections and 88 (51%) major resections (>3 liver segments) were performed. Severe postoperative morbidity and 90-day mortality was 15.6% and 2.9%, respectively. After multivariable analysis, blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR] 2.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-6.4], P = 0.03), major resection (OR 2.9 [95% CI 1.1-7.5], P = 0.03), and triplet chemotherapy (OR 2.6 [95% CI 1.1-7.5], P = 0.03) were independently correlated with severe postoperative complications. No association was found between number of cycles of systemic therapy and severe complications (r = -0.038, P = 0.31).

Conclusion

In patients with initially unresectable CRLM undergoing modern induction systemic therapy and extensive liver surgery, severe postoperative morbidity and 90-day mortality were 15.6% and 2.7%, respectively. Triplet chemotherapy, blood transfusion, and major resections were associated with severe postoperative morbidity.

Predictors of curative-intent oncologic management among patients with stage IV rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Management of stage IV rectal adenocarcinoma is categorized into curative and palliative-intent strategies. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of and associations with curative-intent treatment in stage IV rectal cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2016 was queried for patients with stage IV rectal adenocarcinoma and were grouped into curative-intent and non-curative management. Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict use of curative-intent management.

RESULTS

16,862 patients were included in this study: 4886 (30.0%) curative-intent and 11,975 (71.0%) non-curative. Multivariable regression demonstrated curative intent was associated with young age, female gender, white race, private insurance, mucinous histology and anaplastic grade.

CONCLUSION

Use of curative intent oncologic management among patients with stage IV rectal adenocarcinoma is influenced by age, tumor biology and location of metastatic disease. Association with gender and insurance imply the presence of disparity in the delivery of cancer care among this patient population.

Simultaneous Resection of Primary Colorectal Cancer and Synchronous Liver Metastases: Contemporary Practice, Evidence and Knowledge Gaps

The timing of surgical resection of synchronous liver metastases from colorectal cancer has been debated for decades. Several strategies have been proposed, but high-level evidence remains scarce. Simultaneous resection of the primary tumour and liver metastases has been described in numerous retrospective audits and meta-analyses. The potential benefits of simultaneous resections are the eradication of the tumour burden in one procedure, overall shorter procedure time, reduced hospital stay with the likely benefits on quality of life and an expected reduction in the use of health care services compared to staged procedures. However, concerns about accumulating complications and oncological outcomes remain and the optimal selection criteria for whom simultaneous resections are beneficial remains undetermined. Based on the current level of evidence, simultaneous resection should be restricted to patients with a limited liver tumour burden. More high-level evidence studies are needed to evaluate the quality of life, complication burden, oncological outcomes, as well as overall health care implications for simultaneous resections.

Centralized repeated resectability assessment of patients with colorectal liver metastases during first-line treatment: prospective study

BACKGROUND

Metastasectomy is probably underused in metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of centralized repeated assessment on resectability rate of liver metastases.

METHODS

The prospective RAXO study was a nationwide study in Finland. Patients with treatable metastatic colorectal cancer at any site were eligible. This planned substudy included patients with baseline liver metastases between 2012 and 2018. Resectability was reassessed by the multidisciplinary team at Helsinki tertiary referral centre upfront and twice during first-line systemic therapy. Outcomes were resectability rates, management changes, and survival.

RESULTS

Of 812 patients included, 301 (37.1 per cent) had liver-only metastases. Of these, tumours were categorized as upfront resectable in 161 (53.5 per cent), and became amenable to surgery during systemic treatment in 63 (20.9 per cent). Some 207 patients (68.7 per cent) eventually underwent liver resection or ablation. At baseline, a discrepancy in resectability between central and local judgement was noted for 102 patients (33.9 per cent). Median disease-free survival (DFS) after first resection was 20 months and overall survival (OS) 79 months. Median OS after diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer was 80, 32, and 21 months in R0-1 resection, R2/ablation, and non-resected groups, and 5-year OS rates were 68, 37, and 9 per cent, respectively. Liver and extrahepatic metastases were present in 511 patients. Of these, tumours in 72 patients (14.1 per cent) were categorized as upfront resectable, and 53 patients (10.4 per cent) became eligible for surgery. Eventually 110 patients (21.5 per cent) underwent liver resection or ablation. At baseline, a discrepancy between local and central resectability was noted for 116 patients (22.7 per cent). Median DFS from first resection was 7 months and median OS 55 months. Median OS after diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer was 79, 42, and 17 months in R0-1 resection, R2/ablation, and non-resected groups, with 5-year OS rates of 65, 39, and 2 per cent, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Repeated centralized resectability assessment in patients with colorectal liver metastases improved resection and survival rates.

Effects of the proximity of metastasis to the central vessels of the liver on surgical outcomes and survival in colorectal cancer with liver metastasis

BACKGROUND

Resectability of liver metastasis is important to establish a treatment strategy for patients with colorectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the distance from metastasis to the centre of the liver on surgical outcomes and survival after hepatectomy.

METHODS

The clinical data of a total of 155 patients who underwent hepatectomy for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis were retrospectively reviewed. We measured the minimal length from metastasis to the bifurcation of the portal vein at the primary branch of the Glissonean tree and defined it as 'centrality'. The postoperative outcomes and survival among the patients were then analysed.

RESULTS

Anatomic resections were more frequently performed, and the operative time was longer in the patients with high centrality (≤1.5 cm) than in the patients with low centrality (>1.5 cm). A size of ≥5 cm for the largest lesion, a number of lesions of ≥3 and centrality of ≤1.5 cm were found to be the independent risk factors of a positive resection margin after hepatectomy. The patients with high centrality showed worse recurrence-free survival than those with low centrality; however, there was no significant difference found in the overall survival. In the multivariate analysis, high centrality was not found to be associated with worse recurrence-free and overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Centrality significantly affected the surgical outcomes and treatment strategy for liver metastasis but did not influence the survival of the patients with colorectal cancer. Active efforts through surgical resections are important to treat liver metastasis of high centrality.

Repeated centralized multidisciplinary team assessment of resectability, clinical behavior, and outcomes in 1086 Finnish metastatic colorectal cancer patients (RAXO): A nationwide prospective intervention study

Background

Resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases provides good survival but is probably underused in real-world practice.

Methods

A prospective Finnish nationwide study enrolled treatable metastatic CRC patients. The intervention was the assessment of resectability upfront and twice during first-line therapy by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) at Helsinki tertiary referral centre. The primary outcome was resection rates and survival.

Findings

In 2012–2018, 1086 patients were included. Median follow-up was 58 months. Multiple metastatic sites were present in 500 (46%) patients at baseline and in 820 (76%) during disease trajectory. In MDT assessments, 447 (41%) were classified as resectable, 310 (29%) upfront and 137 (18%) after conversion therapy. Six-hundred and ninety curative intent resections or local ablative therapies (LAT) were performed in 399 patients (89% of 447 resectable). Multiple metastasectomies for multisite or later developing metastases were performed in 148 (37%) patients. Overall, 414 liver, 112 lung, 57 peritoneal, and 107 other metastasectomies were performed. Median OS was 80·4 months in R0/1-resected (HR 0·15; CI_95% 0·12–0·19), 39·1 months in R2-resected/LAT (0·39; 0·29–0·53) patients, and 20·8 months in patients treated with “systemic therapy alone” (reference), with 5-year OS rates of 66%, 40%, and 6%, respectively.

Interpretation

Repeated centralized MDT assessment in real-world metastatic CRC patients generates high resectability (41%) and resection rates (37%) with impressive survival, even when multisite metastases are present or develop later.

Funding

The funders had no role in the study design, analysis, and interpretation of the data or writing of this report.

Conversion strategies with chemotherapy plus targeted agents for colorectal cancer liver-only metastases: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the optimal systemic conversion therapy in patients with unresectable colorectal cancer liver-only metastases (CRLM) to achieve a complete resection. Interpretation of trials is complicated by heterogeneity of patients caused by emerging prognostic and predictive characteristics, such as RAS/BRAF mutation status, lack of consensus on unresectability criteria and lack of data on clinical outcome of secondary resections. A systematic review was performed of characteristics of study populations and methodology of trials regarding patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver-only metastases.

METHODS

Phase II/III randomised trials, published after 2008, regarding first-line systemic conversion therapy in patients or subgroups of patients with CRLM were included. Data on secondary resection outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 trials were included for analysis: seven prospective trials in patients with unresectable CRLM and 13 trials in the overall population of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with retrospective subgroup analysis of CRLM patients. Fourteen trials did not provide unresectability criteria at baseline, and criteria differed among the remaining studies. Trials and study populations were heterogeneous in prognostic/predictive factors, use of primary end-points, and reporting on long-term clinical outcomes. R0-resection rates in CRLM patients varied between CRLM studies and mCRC studies, with rates of 22-57% and 11-38%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-study comparison of (subgroups of) studies regarding first-line systemic treatment in patients with unresectable CRLM is hampered by heterogeneity in study populations, trial designs, use of (K)RAS/BRAF mutational tumour status, and differences/absence of unresectability criteria. No optimal conversion systemic regimen can be selected from available data. Prospective studies with well-defined criteria of these issues are warranted.

Choices of Therapeutic Strategies for Colorectal Liver Metastases Among Expert Liver Surgeons: A Throw of the Dice?

OBJECTIVE

To test the degree of agreement in selecting therapeutic options for patients suffering from colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) among surgical experts around the globe.

SUMMARY/BACKGROUND

Only few areas in medicine have seen so many novel therapeutic options over the past decades as for liver tumors. Significant variations may therefore exist regarding the choices of treatment, even among experts, which may confuse both the medical community and patients.

METHODS

Ten cases of CRLM with different levels of complexity were presented to 43 expert liver surgeons from 23 countries and 4 continents. Experts were defined as experienced surgeons with academic contributions to the field of liver tumors. Experts provided information on their medical education and current practice in liver surgery and transplantation. Using an online platform, they chose their strategy in treating each case from defined multiple choices with added comments. Inter-rater agreement among experts and cases was calculated using free-marginal multirater kappa methodology. A similar, but adjusted survey was presented to 60 general surgeons from Asia, Europe, and North America to test their attitude in treating or referring complex patients to expert centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight (88%) experts completed the evaluation. Most of them are in leading positions (92%) with a median clinical experience of 25 years. Agreement on therapeutic strategies among them was none to minimal in more than half of the cases with kappa varying from 0.00 to 0.39. Many general surgeons may not refer the complex cases to expert centers, including in Europe, where they also engage in complex liver surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable inconsistencies of decision-making exist among expert surgeons when choosing a therapeutic strategy for CRLM. This might confuse both patients and referring physicians and indicate that an international high-level consensus statements and widely accepted guidelines are needed.

The value of a dedicated multidisciplinary expert panel to assess treatment strategy in patients suffering from colorectal cancer liver metastases

BACKGROUND

For patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM), local treatment is the only treatment with curative intent. The majority of patients with CRLM are however evaluated in multidisciplinary teams of colorectal cancer specialists often lacking expertise in local treatment of liver tumors. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the value of a dedicated multidisciplinary panel consisting of hepatobiliary surgeons and interventional radiologists for patients suffering from liver-only CRLM.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with liver-only CRLM in 2016 were identified in a tertiary referral hospital, and two of the referring hospitals in the Netherlands. Diagnostic imaging was independently reviewed by a panel of four hepatobiliary surgeons and two interventional radiologists to re-evaluate treatment strategy retrospectively. If two or more panelists assessed all lesions eligible for resection and/or ablation, patients were deemed eligible for local treatment with curative intent. Interrater reliability between hepatobiliary surgeons was assessed through intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and weighted Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Diagnostic imaging of 61 patients with liver-only metastases were reviewed. Local treatment strategies appeared feasible in 40/61 (65.6%) patients. Five out of 25 patients (20.0%) initially assigned to systemic therapy were deemed eligible for upfront local treatment with curative intent (p = 0.015). In this subgroup, interrater reliability between hepatobiliary surgeons was substantial (ICC: 0.704, 95% CI: 0.536-0.838, n = 25).

CONCLUSION

Assessment of treatment strategy by a dedicated multidisciplinary panel including liver experts may result in an increased number of patients eligible for potentially curative treatment and reduce undertreatment of patients suffering from liver-only CRLM.

Optimization of transmural care by implementation of an online expert panel to assess treatment strategy in patients suffering from colorectal cancer liver metastases: A prospective analysis

INTRODUCTION

Centralization of oncological care results in a growing demand for specialized consultations and referrals. Improved telemedicine solutions are needed to facilitate access to specialist care and select patients eligible for referral. The purpose of this quality improvement initiative was to optimize transmural care for patients suffering from colorectal cancer liver metastases through implementation of an online expert panel.

METHODS

A digital communication platform was developed to share medical data, including high-quality diagnostic imaging of patients suffering from colorectal cancer liver metastases. Feasibility of local treatment strategies was assessed by a panel of liver specialists to select patients for referral. After implementation, an observational cohort study was conducted to evaluate quality improvement in transmural care using revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines.

RESULTS

From September 2016-September 2018, eight hospitals were connected to the platform, covering a population of 3 m. In total, 123 cases were assessed, of which 54 (43.9%) were prevented from needless physical referral. Assessment of treatment strategy by an online expert panel significantly reduced the average lead time during multidisciplinary team meetings from 3.73 min to 2.12 min per patient (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an online expert panel is an innovative, accessible and user-friendly way to provide cancer-specific expertise to regional hospitals. E-consultation of such panels may result in more efficient multidisciplinary team meetings and prevent fragile patients from needless referral. Sustainability of these panels however is subject to structural financial compensation, so a cost-effectiveness analysis is warranted.

Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases: Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a ‘toolbox’ of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.

Liver Transplantation for Colorectal and Neuroendocrine Liver Metastases and Hepatoblastoma. Working Group Report From the ILTS Transplant Oncology Consensus Conference

Liver transplantation (LT) for unresectable colorectal liver metastases has long been abandoned because of dismal prognoses. After the dark ages, advances in chemotherapy and diagnostic imaging have enabled strict patient selection, and the pioneering study from the Oslo group has contributed to the substantial progress in this field. For unresectable neuroendocrine liver metastases, LT for patients who met the Milan criteria was able to achieve excellent long-term outcomes. The guidelines further adopted in the United States and Europe were based on these criteria. For hepatoblastoma, patients with unresectable and borderline-resectable disease are considered good candidates for LT; however, the indications are yet to be defined. In the budding era of transplant oncology, it is critically important to recognize the current status and unsolved questions for each disease entity. These guidelines were developed to serve as a beacon of light for optimal patient selection for LT and set the stage for future basic and clinical studies.

Population-based study on practice variation regarding preoperative systemic chemotherapy in patients with colorectal liver metastases and impact on short-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Definitions regarding resectability and hence indications for preoperative chemotherapy vary. Use of preoperative chemotherapy may influence postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to assess the variation in use of preoperative chemotherapy for CRLM and related postoperative outcomes in the Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2018 were included from a national database. Case-mix factors contributing to the use of preoperative chemotherapy, hospital variation and postoperative outcomes were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Postoperative outcomes were postoperative complicated course (PCC), 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 4469 patients were included of whom 1314 patients received preoperative chemotherapy and 3155 patients did not. Patients receiving chemotherapy were significantly younger (mean age (+SD) 66.3 (10.4) versus 63.2 (10.2) p < 0.001) and had less comorbidity (Charlson scores 2+ (24% versus 29%, p = 0.010). Unadjusted hospital variation concerning administration of preoperative chemotherapy ranged between 2% and 55%. After adjusting for case-mix factors, three hospitals administered significantly more preoperative chemotherapy than expected and six administered significantly less preoperative chemotherapy than expected. PCC was 12.1%, 30-day morbidity was 8.8% and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. No association between preoperative chemotherapy and PCC (OR 1.24, 0.98-1.55, p = 0.065), 30-day morbidity (OR 1.05, 0.81-1.39, p = 0.703) or with 30-day mortality (OR 1.22, 0.75-2.09, p = 0.467) was found.

CONCLUSION

Significant hospital variation in the use of preoperative chemotherapy for CRLM was present in the Netherlands. No association between postoperative outcomes and use of preoperative chemotherapy was found.