Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review

Consideration of Metastasis-Directed Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Expert Survey and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A survey of medical oncologists (MOs), radiation oncologists (ROs), and surgical oncologists (SOs) who are experts in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to identify factors used to consider metastasis-directed therapy (MDT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey to assess clinical factors when weighing MDT in patients with mCRC was developed based on systematic review of the literature and integrated with clinical vignettes. Supporting evidence from the systematic review was included to aid in answering questions.

RESULTS

Among 75 experts on mCRC invited, 47 (response rate 62.7%) chose to participate including 16 MOs, 16 ROs, and 15 SOs. Most experts would not consider MDT in patients with 3 lesions in both the liver and lung regardless of distribution or timing of metastatic disease diagnosis (6 vs. 36 months after definitive treatment). Similarly, for patients with retroperitoneal lymph node and lung and liver involvement, most experts would not offer MDT regardless of timing of metastatic disease diagnosis. In general, SOs were willing to consider MDT in patients with more advanced disease, ROs were more willing to offer treatment regardless of metastatic site location, and MOs were the least likely to consider MDT.

CONCLUSIONS

Among experts caring for patients with mCRC, significant variation was noted among MOs, ROs, and SOs in the distribution and volume of metastatic disease for which MDT would be considered. This variability highlights differing opinions on management of these patients and underscores the need for well-designed prospective randomized trials to characterize the risks and potential benefits of MDT.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting

PURPOSE

In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study.

METHODS

We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs.

RESULTS

RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs.

CONCLUSIONS

From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

Multiple Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Over the past decades, liver cancer's minimally invasive approach has primarily become as a new standard of oncological care. Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are one of the most developed indications of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). CRLM resection is still the best treatment known in terms of survival. As multiple CRLM are found in up to 80% of cases at diagnosis (Manfredi S. and al, Annals of Surgery 2006), a lot of possible technical management approaches are described. With the development of the parenchymal-sparing strategy, multiple concomitant laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are gaining acceptance. However, no recommendation is available regarding its indications and feasibility. Also, laparoscopic two-stage hepatectomy is developing for bilobar CRLM, and this also does not have established recommendation. The purpose of this paper was to highlight novelty and updates in the field of multiple minimally invasive liver resections. A review of the international literature was performed. The feasibility of laparoscopic concomitant multiple LLR and two-stage hepatectomy for CRLM as well as their outcomes were discussed. These clarifications could further guide the implementation of minimal resection in multiple colorectal liver metastases therapies.

Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Multimodal Therapy

Despite a steady decline in incidence and mortality rates, colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cancer diagnosis in women and the third most common in men worldwide. Notably, the liver is recognized as the most common site of CRC metastasis, and metastases to the liver remain the primary driver of disease-specific mortality for patients with CRC. Although hepatic resection is the backbone of curative-intent treatment, management of CRLM has become increasingly multimodal during the last decade and includes the use of downstaging chemotherapy, ablation techniques, and locoregional therapy, each of which are reviewed herein.

Laparoscopic vs open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of surgical margin status and survival

BACKGROUND

Liver resection represents the curative treatment of choice for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Laparoscopic hepatectomy in CRLM is considered a safe approach. However, the information on their oncological results in the different series is deficient. This study aimed to compare the surgical margin, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with oncological resections of CRLM according to the type of surgical approach performed.

METHODS

Between April 2007 and June 2017, 263 patients with CRLM underwent hepatic resection. Inclusion criteria were initial resectability, tumor size ≤ 50 mm, 3 or less metastases, no bilobar involvement, and absence of extrahepatic disease. A propensity score was performed to adjust the indication bias.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included (56 open and 26 laparoscopic). Twenty-eight (50%) patients had synchronous presentation in the open approach and 6 (23%) in the laparoscopic approach (p = 0.021), with more frequent simultaneous open resections (p = 0.037). The resection margin was positive (R1) in 5 patients with an open approach and 2 with a laparoscopic approach (8.9% and 7.6% respectively; p = 0.852). Nine patients (16%) with conventional approach and 2 (7.7%) with laparoscopic approach had local complications (p = 0.3). There was one death in the open group and none in the laparoscopic. There were no significant differences in OS and DFS rate between both groups (1-3 years, OS: 92-77% and 96-75% respectively; 1-3 years, DFS: 63-20% and 73-36% respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in terms of surgical margin, OS rate, and DFS rate between the laparoscopic and open approach in patients with CRLM.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is a highly demanding procedure with great variability. Previously published randomized trials have proven oncological safety of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) as compared to open surgery. However, these were started after the learning curve (LC) was established. This leaves the question of whether the LC of LLR in the early laparoscopic era has affected the survival of patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM).

Methods

All consecutive LLRs performed by a single surgeon between 2000 and 2019 were retrospectively analysed. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) chart for conversion rate and the log regression analysis of the blood loss identified two phases in the LC. This was then applied to patients with CRLM, and the two subgroups were compared for recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). The analysis was repeated with propensity score-matched (PSM) groups

Results

A total of 286 patients were included in the LC analysis, which identified two distinct phases, the early (EP; 68 patients) and the late (LP; 218 patients) phases. The LC was applied to 192 patients with colorectal liver metastasis (EPc, 45 patients; LPc, 147 patients). For patients with CRLM, R0 resection was achieved in 93 per cent: 100 per cent in the EPc group and 90 per cent in the LPc group (P = 0.026). Median OS and RFS were 60 and 16 months, respectively. The 5-year OS and RFS were 51 per cent and 32.7 per cent, respectively. OS (hazard ratio (h.r.) 0.78, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.51 to 1.2; P = 0.286) and RFS (h.r. 0.94, 95 per cent c.i. 0.64 to 1.37; P = 0.760) were not compromised by the learning curve. The results were replicated after PSM.

Conclusion

In our experience, the development of a laparoscopic liver resection programme can be achieved without adverse effects on the long-term survival of patients with CRLM.

Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases - short- and long-term outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

For well-selected patients and procedures, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) when performed in specialized centers. However, little is currently known concerning patient-related and peri-operative factors that could play a role in survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM.

AIM

To provide an extensive summary of reported outcomes and prognostic factors associated with LLR for CRLM.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "colorectal liver metastases", "laparoscopy", "liver resection", "prognostic factors", "outcomes" and "survival". Only publications written in English and published until December 2019 were included. Furthermore, abstracts of which no accompanying full text was published, reviews, case reports, letters, protocols, comments, surveys and animal studies were excluded. All search results were saved to Endnote Online and imported in Rayyan for systematic selection. Data of interest were extracted from the included publications and tabulated for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 1064 articles retrieved by means of a systematic and grey literature search, 77 were included for qualitative analysis. Seventy-two research papers provided data concerning outcomes of LLR for CRLM. Fourteen papers were eligible for extraction of data concerning prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes. Qualitative analysis of the collected data showed that LLR for CRLM is safe, feasible and provides oncological efficiency. Multiple research groups have reported on the short-term advantages of LLR compared to open procedures. The obtained results accounted for minor LLR, as well as major LLR, simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection, LLR of posterosuperior segments, two-stage hepatectomy and repeat LLR for CRLM. Few research groups so far have studied prognostic factors affecting long-term outcomes of LLR for CRLM.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR for CRLM provides good short- and long-term outcomes, independent of the complexity of the procedure.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma as the new field of implementation of laparoscopic liver resection programs. A comparative propensity score-based analysis of open and laparoscopic liver resections

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study is to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for (Intrahepatic CholangioCarcinoma) ICC in the modern era of laparoscopic liver surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic and open liver resections for ICC in two European referral centers were included. Finally, 104 patients from the open group and 104 patients from the laparoscopic group were compared after propensity scores matching according to seven covariates representative of patients and disease characteristics. Indications to surgery and short- and long-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Operative time, number of retrieved nodes, rate, and depth of negative resection margins were comparable between the two groups. Blood loss was lower in the MILS (150 ± 100 mL, mean ± SD) compared with the Open group (350 ± 250 mL, p = 0.030). Postoperative complications occurred in 14.4% of patients in the MILS and in the 24% of patients in the Open group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in long-term outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm feasibility, safety, and oncological efficiency of the laparoscopic approach in the management of ICC. However, this surgery is often complex and should be only considered in centers with large experience in laparoscopic liver surgery.

[Minimally invasive liver surgery]

Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and can be performed with results practically equal to those in open surgery. There are different techniques of parenchyma dissection and hemostasis available for the safe performance of minor and major resections, both laparoscopically and robotics based. Due to its technical options robotics-based surgery is a further development of laparoscopy. Expertise in minimally invasive and in liver surgery are essential prerequisites.

Simultaneous colorectal and parenchymal-sparing liver resection for advanced colorectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: Between conventional and mini-invasive approaches

The optimal timing of surgery in case of synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases is still under debate. Staged approach, with initial colorectal resection followed by liver resection (LR), or even the reverse, liver-first approach in specific situations, is traditionally preferred. Simultaneous resections, however, represent an appealing strategy, because may have perioperative risks comparable to staged resections in appropriately selected patients, while avoiding a second surgical procedure. In patients with larger or multiple synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases, simultaneous major hepatectomies may determine worse perioperative outcomes, so that parenchymal-sparing LR should represent the most appropriate option whenever feasible. Mini-invasive colorectal surgery has experienced rapid spread in the last decades, while laparoscopic LR has progressed much slower, and is usually reserved for limited tumours in favourable locations. Moreover, mini-invasive parenchymal-sparing LR is more complex, especially for larger or multiple tumours in difficult locations. It remains to be established if simultaneous resections are presently feasible with mini-invasive approaches or if we need further technological advances and surgical expertise, at least for more complex procedures. This review aims to critically analyze the current status and future perspectives of simultaneous resections, and the present role of the available mini-invasive techniques.

Laparoscopic liver resection: indications, limitations, and economic aspects

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly found their way into liver surgery in recent years. A multitude of mostly retrospective analyses suggests several advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery. Due to the speed and variety of simultaneous technical and strategic developments, it is difficult to maintain an overview of the current status and perspectives in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Purpose

This review highlights up-to-date aspects in laparoscopic liver surgery. We discuss established indications with regard to their development over time as well as continuing limitations of applied techniques. We give an assessment based on the current literature and according to our own center experiences, not least with regard to a highly topical cost discussion.

Conclusions

While in the beginning mainly benign tumors were laparoscopically operated on, liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma are now among the most frequent indications. Technical limitations remain and should be evaluated with the overall aim not to endanger quality standards in open surgery. Financial aspects cannot be neglected with the necessity of cost-covering reimbursement.

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection for the management of colorectal liver metastases

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide. The commonest site of spread is the liver, with up to 40% of patients developing colorectal liver metastasis (CLRM) during the course of their lifetime. Significant advances in surgical techniques, as well as breakthroughs in chemotherapy and biologic agents, have resulted in dramatic improvements in prognosis. A multimodal approach comprising of liver resection coupled with systemic therapy offers these patients the best chance of cure. The arrival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) within the last 3 decades has added a whole new dimension to the management of this condition. Today, CLRM is one of the most frequent indications for LLR globally. Meta-analyses of retrospective studies and two randomized trials have demonstrated superior short-term outcomes following LLR, with no differences in mortality rates. Oncologically, R0 resection rates are comparable to the open approach, while overall and disease-free survival rates are also similar. As surgeons gain confidence, boundaries are pushed even further. High-volume centers have published their early experiences with complex LLR of recurrent CLRM as well as totally laparoscopic synchronous resection of CRC and liver metastases, with very encouraging results. In the presence of extensive bilobar CLRM, two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) and associating liver partition with portal vein ligation (ALPPS) may be adopted to augment an inadequate future liver remnant to facilitate metastasectomy. Interestingly, the adoption of LLR for these techniques also seem to confer additional benefits. Despite the plethora of advantages, LLR comes with its own unique set of limitations such as a steep learning curve and high cost. The surgical world eagerly awaits the results of prospective trials currently underway in order to further advance the management of this disease.

Oncologic safety of laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy in pT2 gallbladder cancer: A propensity score matching analysis compared to open approach

The role of laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy (LRC) in the surgical management of T2 gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is still controversial.The medical records of patients with T2 GBC treated with radical cholecystectomy were retrospectively reviewed. In this study, we compare the short- and long-term oncologic outcomes, using propensity score matching analysis, of patients with T2 GBC who underwent LRC and open radical cholecystectomy (ORC).Among 183 patients, 86 were selected by propensity score matching (LRC = 43 and ORC = 43). The ORC group underwent more extensive surgery (liver resections and extended lymph node dissections [ELND]) than the LRC group. The LRC group had less operative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer complications, and had the earlier start of adjuvant chemotherapy. There was no significant difference between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups in terms of 5-year overall survival rate (64.6% vs 80.4%, P = .214) and disease-free survival rate (77.1% vs 82.2%, P = .641). A subgroup analyses showed that liver resection and ELND had no survival advantage compared to no liver resection and regional lymph node dissection, respectively.Our LRC approach is safe and effective, with long-term survival comparable to that of ORC.

Novel strategy in the treatment of liver metastases - Hepatic resection combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the safety, feasibility and outcomes of patients treated for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) with an innovative combined approach - hepatic resection and Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using CyberKnife® system.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single institution. Patients with CLM and no evidence of extrahepatic disease were included during a 6-year study period.

RESULTS

In total, 19 patients with 63 liver lesions underwent liver resection combined with SBRT of unresectable lesions. Major hepatectomy was performed in 42.1% patients; postoperative complications were noted in 31.6% patients. 27 unresectable lesions were treated by SBRT with a total dose of 50-60 Gy in five fractions. The median follow-up of study patients was 29.7 ± 20.58 months. Local control of CLM at 1 and 2 years was achieved in 89.5% of patients. Out-of-field hepatic recurrence was diagnosed in 63.1% patients. The 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 52.6%; 2-year DFS was 31.6%. The overall actuarial survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 88.2% and 50.4%.

CONCLUSION

Liver resection combined with SBRT presents a promising therapeutic option for patients with CLM which traditionally are unresectable. The additional use of SBRT allows for the effective clearance of the disease for thoroughly selected patients.

Development and validation of novel scoring system for the prediction of disease recurrence following resection of colorectal liver metastasis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to identify predictive factors for the recurrence of colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) and then to develop a corresponding novel scoring system that should improve the sensitivity of predicting recurrence in patients with CRLM.

METHODS

A total of 295 consecutive CRLM patients were enrolled in our institution between January 2002 and December 2015. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify the variables associated with disease recurrence and established the novel scoring system based on it.

RESULTS

The scoring system considered seven variables: synchronosity, CA19-9 level, number of liver metastasis, largest size of liver metastasis, resection margin of hepatic lesion, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and prognostic nutritional index. The area under the curve of ROC was 0.824 (95% confidence interval 0.767-0.882); the sensitivity of our scoring system was 87.9%, specificity was 66.7%, positive predictive value was 20.6%, and negative predictive value was 20.9%.

CONCLUSION

For patients with CRLM undergoing curative hepatic resection, our novel scoring system would improve the sensitivity for prediction of disease recurrence in Case of CRLM patients.

Improved imaging of colorectal liver metastases using single-source, fast kVp-switching, dual-energy CT: preliminary results

Purpose

Computed tomography remains the first-choice modality for assessment of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM). Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is a relatively new technique that is becoming increasingly available. One of the advantages of DECT is the ability to maximise iodine detection. Our aim was to test whether single-source, fast kVp-switching DECT can improve imaging quality of CRLM compared to conventional (polychromatic) CT.

Material and methods

Twenty consecutive patients were enrolled into a preliminary prospective study. The scanning protocol consisted of four phases: non-contrast with standard 120 kV tube voltage and three post-contrast phases with rapid voltage switching. As a result, three sets of images were reconstructed: pre- and postcontrast polychromatic (PR), monochromatic (MR), and iodine concentration map (IM). To compare the sensitivity of the tested reconstructions, the number of CRLMs and the maximum diameter of the largest lesion were calculated. Objective image quality was measured as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). The radiation dose was expressed as CTDI_vol.

Results

Imaging was successfully performed in all patients. The number of detected lesions was significantly lower on PR images than on IM and MR 50-70 keV (mean number: 4.20 and 4.45, respectively). IM and MR at 70 keV presented the highest quality. SNR was significantly higher for IM and 70 keV images than for other reconstructions. The mean radiation dose was 14.61 mGy for non-contrast 120 kV scan and 17.89 mGy for single DECT scan (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

DECT is a promising tool for CRLM imaging. IM and low-photon energy MR present the highest differences in contrast between metastases and the normal liver parenchyma.

Repeating of local therapy of distant metastases increases overall survival in patients with synchronous metastasized rectal cancer-a monocentric analysis

PURPOSE

The aim was to evaluate the outcome of treatment-naive patients with synchronous metastatic rectal cancer after chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI followed by local therapeutic procedures of all tumor lesions as complete as possible.

METHODS

We reviewed data of 30 patients with synchronous distant metastatic rectal cancer who underwent chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI and subsequent local therapy in our institution.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 28 months (range: 8; 74). Cumulative overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 93.3, 76.9, 55.6% and 46.2, 29.7, 29.7% after 1, 2, 4 years. Non-response to chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI was associated with a highly significant decreased OS (p < 0.0001). The consistent use of local ablative procedures led to a statistically significant increase in OS (p < 0.0001), but not in PFS (p = 0.635). Patients with ≤ 4 distant metastases showed a better OS (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Response to intensified first-line chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI, treatment of the primary rectal tumor, and repeated thorough local ablative procedures in patients with synchronous metastasized rectal cancer may lead to long-term survival, even in a subset of patients with unresectable disease at initial diagnosis.

Recent advances in treatment for colorectal liver metastasis

A major challenge for the management of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) is the multidisciplinary approach including surgery. Resection is the most important treatment strategy to prolong the survival of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Even when resection is not possible as a primary treatment, it may still be carried out for curative intent after effective chemotherapy. Therefore, resection should always be considered when conducting chemotherapy for CRLM. Neoadjuvant anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody has shown a high response rate for RAS wild CRC. However, whether anti-EGFR antibody is superior to antivascular endothelial growth factor antibody for all types of CRLM is yet to be determined. Recently, several randomized control trials of first-line therapy for advanced CRC have been conducted, and some of them are ongoing. The optimal chemotherapy regimen and tumor biology indicated for neoadjuvant chemotherapy as well as conversion surgery are expected to be determined in the near future.