1
|
Tian Y, Wang Y, Wen N, Wang S, Li B, Liu G. Prognostic factors associated with early recurrence following liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:426. [PMID: 38584263 PMCID: PMC11000331 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12162-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2023] [Accepted: 03/21/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 3rd most common malignancy with the liver being the most common site of metastases. The recurrence rate of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) after liver resection (LR) is notably high, with an estimated 40% of patients experiencing recurrence within 6 months. In this context, we conducted a meta-analysis to synthesize and evaluate the reliability of evidence pertaining to prognostic factors associated with early recurrence (ER) in CRLM following LR. METHODS Systematic searches were conducted from the inception of databases to July 14, 2023, to identify studies reporting prognostic factors associated with ER. The Quality in Prognostic Factor Studies (QUIPS) tool was employed to assess risk-of-bias for included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed on these prognostic factors, summarized by forest plots. The grading of evidence was based on sample size, heterogeneity, and Egger's P value. RESULTS The study included 24 investigations, comprising 12705 individuals, during an accrual period that extended from 2007 to 2023. In the evaluation of risk-of-bias, 22 studies were rated as low/moderate risk, while two studies were excluded because of high risk. Most of the studies used a postoperative interval of 6 months to define ER, with 30.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.1-36.4%) of the patients experiencing ER following LR. 21 studies were pooled for meta-analysis. High-quality evidence showed that poor differentiation of CRC, larger and bilobar-distributed liver metastases, major hepatectomy, positive surgical margins, and postoperative complications were associated with an elevated risk of ER. Additionally, moderate-quality evidence suggested that elevated levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA199), lymph node metastases (LNM) of CRC, and a higher number of liver metastases were risk factors for ER. CONCLUSION This review has the potential to enhance the efficacy of surveillance strategies, refine prognostic assessments, and guide judicious treatment decisions for CRLM patients with high risk of ER. Additionally, it is essential to undertake well-designed prospective investigations to examine additional prognostic factors and develop salvage therapeutic approaches for ER of CRLM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuan Tian
- Department of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China
- Research Center for Biliary Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Yaoqun Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China
- Research Center for Biliary Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Ningyuan Wen
- Department of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China
- Research Center for Biliary Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Shaofeng Wang
- Department of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China
- Research Center for Biliary Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Bei Li
- Department of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China.
- Research Center for Biliary Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| | - Geng Liu
- Department of General Surgery, Division of Biliary Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China.
- Research Center for Biliary Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Boyev A, Tzeng CWD, Maki H, Arvide EM, Mrema DE, Jain AJ, Haddad A, Lendoire M, Malik N, Odisio BC, Chun YS, Tran Cao HS, Vauthey JN, Newhook TE. Local Therapy Improves Survival for Early Recurrence After Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 2024; 31:2547-2556. [PMID: 38148351 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14806-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2023] [Accepted: 12/07/2023] [Indexed: 12/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early recurrence following hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) is associated with worse survival; yet, impact of further local therapy is unclear. We sought to evaluate whether local therapy benefits patients with early recurrence following hepatectomy for CLM. METHODS Clinicopathologic and survival outcomes of patients managed with hepatectomy for CLM (1/2001-12/2020) were queried from a prospectively maintained database. Timing of recurrence was stratified as early (recurrence-free survival [RFS] < 6 months), intermediate (RFS 6-12 months), and later (RFS > 12 months). Local therapy was defined as ablation, resection, or radiation. RESULTS Of 671 patients, 541 (81%) recurred with 189 (28%) early, 180 (27%) intermediate, and 172 (26%) later recurrences. Local therapy for recurrence resulted in improved survival, regardless of recurrence timing (early 78 vs. 32 months, intermediate 72 vs. 39 months, later 132 vs. 65 months, all p < 0.001). Following recurrence, treatment with local therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.24), liver and extrahepatic recurrence (HR = 1.81), RAS + TP53 co-mutation (HR = 1.52), and SMAD4 mutation (HR = 1.92) were independently associated with overall survival (all p ≤ 0.002). Among patients with recurrence treated by local therapy, patients older than 65 years (HR 1.79), liver and extrahepatic recurrence (HR 2.05), primary site or other recurrence (HR 1.90), RAS-TP53 co-mutation (HR 1.63), and SMAD4 mutation (HR 2.06) had shorter post-local therapy survival (all p ≤ 0.04). CONCLUSIONS While most patients recur after hepatectomy for CLM, local therapy may result in long-term survival despite early recurrence. Somatic mutational profiling may help to guide the multidisciplinary consideration of local therapy after recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Artem Boyev
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ching-Wei D Tzeng
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Harufumi Maki
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Elsa M Arvide
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Deborah E Mrema
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anish J Jain
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Antony Haddad
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mateo Lendoire
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Neha Malik
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Bruno C Odisio
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yun Shin Chun
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hop S Tran Cao
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Timothy E Newhook
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hellingman T, Galjart B, Henneman JJ, Görgec B, Bijlstra OD, Meijerink MR, Vahrmeijer AL, Grünhagen DJ, van der Vliet HJ, Swijnenburg RJ, Verhoef C, Kazemier G. Limited Effect of Perioperative Systemic Therapy in Patients Selected for Repeat Local Treatment of Recurrent Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases. Ann Surg Open 2022; 3:e164. [PMID: 37601612 PMCID: PMC10431462 DOI: 10.1097/as9.0000000000000164] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study was to determine the potential benefit of perioperative systemic therapy on overall and progression-free survival after repeat local treatment in patients suffering from recurrent colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM). Background The optimal treatment strategy in patients with recurrent CRLM needs to be clarified, in particular for those suffering from early recurrence of CRLM. Methods In this multicenter observational cohort study, consecutive patients diagnosed with recurrent CRLM between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively identified in 4 academic liver surgery centers. Disease-free interval after initial local treatment of CRLM was categorized into recurrence within 6, between 6 and 12, and after 12 months. Perioperative systemic therapy consisted of induction, (neo)adjuvant, or combined regimens. Overall and progression-free survival after repeat local treatment of CRLM were analyzed by multivariable Cox regression analyses, resulting in adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). Results Out of 303 patients included for analysis, 90 patients received perioperative systemic therapy for recurrent CRLM. Favorable overall (aHR, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.75) and progression-free (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.78) survival were observed in patients with a disease-free interval of more than 12 months. No significant difference in overall and progression-free survival was observed in patients receiving perioperative systemic therapy at repeat local treatment of CRLM, stratified for disease-free interval, previous exposure to chemotherapy, and RAS mutation status. Conclusions No benefit of perioperative systemic therapy was observed in overall and progression-free survival after repeat local treatment of recurrent CRLM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tessa Hellingman
- From the Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Boris Galjart
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Julia J. Henneman
- From the Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Burak Görgec
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Okker D. Bijlstra
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Martijn R. Meijerink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Dirk J. Grünhagen
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hans J. van der Vliet
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Lava Therapeutics, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg
- From the Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cornelis Verhoef
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geert Kazemier
- From the Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Costa PF, Coelho FF, Jeismann VB, Kruger JAP, Fonseca GM, Cecconello I, Herman P. Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal liver metastases: A comparative analysis of short- and long-term results. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2022; 21:162-7. [PMID: 34526231 DOI: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2021.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2020] [Accepted: 08/16/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Liver recurrence after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is frequent. Repeat hepatectomy has been shown to have satisfactory perioperative results. However, the long-term outcomes and the benefits for patients with early recurrence have not been clarified. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing single hepatectomy and repeat hepatectomy for CRLM. Additionally, the oncological outcomes of patients with early (≤ 6 months) and late recurrence who underwent repeat hepatectomy were compared. METHODS Consecutive adult patients undergoing hepatectomy for CRLM between June 2000 and February 2020 were included and divided into two groups: single hepatectomy and repeat hepatectomy. RESULTS A total of 709 patients were included: 649 in the single hepatectomy group and 60 in the repeat hepatectomy group. Patients in the repeat hepatectomy group underwent more cycles of preoperative chemotherapy [4 (3-6) vs. 3 (2-4), P = 0.003]. Patients in the single hepatectomy group more frequently underwent major hepatectomies (34.5% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.004) and had a greater number of lesions resected (2.9 ± 3.6 vs. 1.9 ± 1.8, P = 0.011). There was no increase in operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, or mortality in the repeat hepatectomy group. There were no differences in overall survival (P = 0.626) and disease-free survival (P = 0.579) between the two groups. Similarly, for patients underwent repeat hepatectomy, no difference was observed between the early and late recurrence groups in terms of overall survival (P = 0.771) or disease-free survival (P = 0.350). CONCLUSIONS Repeat hepatectomy is feasible and safe, with similar short- and long-term outcomes when compared to single hepatectomy. Surgical treatment of early liver recurrence offers similar oncological outcomes to those obtained for late recurrence.
Collapse
|
5
|
Sucandy I, Shapera E, Crespo K, Syblis C, Przetocki V, Ross S, Rosemurgy A. The effect of the robotic platform in hepatectomy after prior liver and non-liver abdominal operations: a comparative study of clinical outcomes. J Robot Surg 2021. [PMID: 34825309 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01343-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2021] [Accepted: 11/21/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Improvements in outcomes after primary hepatectomy have increased the eligibility of patients for reoperative hepatectomies, but this can be fraught with technical difficulties, particularly via a minimally invasive approach. The robotic approach provides superior visualization, articulated instrumentation, platform stability, and increased dexterity when compared to conventional laparoscopy. We sought to investigate the effect brought by the robotic system in the outcome of these operations. We followed 234 patients who underwent robotic liver resection from 2012 to 2021 for retrospective analysis. Patients were classified as: no prior abdominal operation, prior abdominal operation(s), and prior liver resection. Cohorts were compared by one-way ANOVA and 2 × 3 contingency table analyses. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was accepted at p < 0.05. Of the 234 patients studied, 114 underwent primary hepatectomy, 105 had a prior laparoscopic or open abdominal operation (cholecystectomy, herniorrhaphy, colectomy, and appendectomy), and 15 had a redo hepatectomy. Demographic and preoperative ASA, MELD, neoplasm size, and extent of liver resection were similar among the cohorts. There were no statistically significant differences between the three cohorts for all outcome variables including blood loss, operative duration, intensive care unit length of stay, overall length of stay, morbidity, mortality, and readmission rate. There were no differences in morbidity nor mortality between patients undergoing primary nor reoperative robotic hepatectomy. The advantages afforded by the robotic platform may have contributed to the equalization of outcomes.
Collapse
|
6
|
Hellingman T, Kuiper BI, Buffart LM, Meijerink MR, Versteeg KS, Swijnenburg RJ, van Delden OM, Haasbeek CJA, de Vries JJJ, van Waesberghe JHTM, Zonderhuis BM, van der Vliet HJ, Kazemier G. Survival Benefit of Repeat Local Treatment in Patients Suffering From Early Recurrence of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2021; 20:e263-e272. [PMID: 34462211 DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2021.07.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2021] [Revised: 07/17/2021] [Accepted: 07/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A uniform treatment strategy for patients suffering from early recurrence after local treatment of CRLM is currently lacking. The aim of this observational cohort study was to assess the potential survival benefit of repeat local treatment compared to systemic therapy in patients suffering from early recurrence of CRLM. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients who developed recurrent CRLM within 12 months after initial local treatment with curative intent were retrospectively identified in Amsterdam University Medical Centers between 2009-2019. Differences in overall and progression-free survival among treatment strategies were assessed using multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS A total of 135 patients were included. Median overall survival of 41 months [range 4-135] was observed in patients who received repeat local treatment, consisting of upfront or repeat local treatment after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, compared to 24 months [range 1-55] in patients subjected to systemic therapy alone (adjusted HR = 0.42 [95%-CI: 0.25-0.72]; P = .002). Prolonged progression-free survival was observed after neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment, as compared to upfront repeat local treatment in patients with recurrent CRLM within 4 months following initial local treatment of CRLM (adjusted HR = 0.36 [95%-CI: 0.15-0.86]; P = .021). CONCLUSION Patients with early recurrence of CRLM should be considered for repeat local treatment strategies. A multimodality approach, consisting of neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment, appeared favorable in patients with recurrence within 4 months following initial local treatment of CRLM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tessa Hellingman
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Babette I Kuiper
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Laurien M Buffart
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Martijn R Meijerink
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Kathelijn S Versteeg
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Otto M van Delden
- Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Cornelis J A Haasbeek
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jan J J de Vries
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jan Hein T M van Waesberghe
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Barbara M Zonderhuis
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hans J van der Vliet
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Lava Therapeutics, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Geert Kazemier
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Hellingman T, de Swart ME, Heymans MW, Jansma EP, van der Vliet HJ, Kazemier G. Repeat hepatectomy justified in patients with early recurrence of colorectal cancer liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol 2021; 74:101977. [PMID: 34303642 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2021.101977] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2021] [Revised: 06/04/2021] [Accepted: 06/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The benefit of repeat hepatectomy in patients with early recurrence of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) is questioned, in particular in those suffering from recurrence within three to six months following initial hepatectomy. The aim of this review was therefore to assess whether disease-free interval was associated with overall survival in patients undergoing repeat hepatectomy for recurrent CRLM. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched from database inception to 6th June 2020. Observational studies describing results of repeat hepatectomy for recurrent CRLM, including (disease-free) interval between hepatic resections and overall survival were included. Patients undergoing repeat hepatectomy within three months or additional resection of extrahepatic disease were excluded from meta-analysis. RESULTS The initial search identified 2159 records, of which 28 were included for qualitative synthesis. A meta-analysis of 15 cohort studies was performed, comprising 1039 eligible patients. Median overall survival of 54.0 months [95 %-CI: 38.6-69.4] was observed after repeat hepatectomy in patients suffering from recurrent CRLM between three to six months compared to 53.0 months [95 %-CI: 44.3-61.6] for patients with recurrent CRLM between seven to twelve months (adjusted HR = 0.89, 95 %-CI: 0.66-1.18; p = 0.410), and 60.0 months [95 %-CI: 52.7-67.3] for patients with recurrent CRLM after twelve months (adjusted HR = 0.70, 95 %-CI: 0.53-0.92; p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS Disease-free interval is considered a prognostic factor for overall survival, but should not be used as selection criterion per se for repeat hepatectomy in patients suffering from recurrent CRLM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tessa Hellingman
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Merijn E de Swart
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Martijn W Heymans
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, de Boelelaan 1089a, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Elise P Jansma
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, de Boelelaan 1089a, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Information & Library, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hans J van der Vliet
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; LAVA Therapeutics, Yalelaan 60, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Geert Kazemier
- Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Machado MA, Mattos BH, Lobo Filho MM, Makdissi FF. Robotic Right Hepatectomy with Portal Vein Thrombectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastasis (with Video). J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 25:1932-5. [PMID: 33689134 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-021-04954-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2020] [Accepted: 02/01/2021] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatectomy is the standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases. However, the high recurrence rate is a persistent problem that occurs in up to 65% of patients. Repeat hepatectomy is a feasible treatment and may offer favorable surviva but is technically demanding so minimally invasive repeat hepatectomy has been used in a few patients. Colorectal liver metastases are different from hepatocellular carcinoma and rarely present with macroscopic portal vein tumoral thrombus. To the best of our knowledge, minimally invasive approaches for this rare condition have not yet been reported. METHOD We present here a video of a robotic right hepatectomy in a patient with single colorectal liver metastasis and macroscopic tumor thrombi in the right portal vein. A 61-year-old woman underwent open resection of a transverse colon cancer (T3N0M0) in December 2015. In March 2019, she underwent nonanatomical resection of a liver metastases located in segment 6 also via an open approach. She then underwent adjuvant chemotherapy. However, in September 2020, she presented with a local recurrence and a tumor thrombus in the right portal vein. She was then referred to us for treatment and a multidisciplinary team decided on upfront liver resection due to the risk of left portal vein progression. Liver volumetry showed future liver remnant of 52.5%. Right hepatectomy with portal vein thrombectomy was indicated. A robotic approach was proposed, and consent was obtained. RESULTS The Da Vinci system was used. The operation began with the division of adhesions from previous laparotomies. Intraoperative ultrasound was performed to locate the tumor and to confirm the portal vein invasion. Hepatic hilum was carefully dissected. The replaced right hepatic artery from the superior mesenteric artery was ligated and divided. The common bile duct was dissected and encircled with a vessel loop. The portal vein was dissected, and an enlarged right portal vein with a protruding tumoral thrombus was seen. The left portal vein and portal vein trunk were then temporarily clamped. The right portal vein was carefully transected with robotic scissors being careful not to displace the thrombus. A minimum stump was left to safely suture the portal vein. The portal vein was then closed with a running 5-0 prolene suture. The portal vein clamping was then released, and a patent anastomosis with no leakage was observed. Right liver ischemic discoloration was seen and confirmed with fluorescence imaging after indocyanine green injection. A future line of transection was marked along ischemic area. The liver was divided using bipolar forceps under saline irrigation until it was detached from the retrohepatic vena cava. A right hepatic vein was divided with a stapler to complete the right hepatectomy. The surgical specimen was removed through a suprapubic incision, and the abdominal cavity was drained with a closed-suction drain. The total operative time was 270 min with no transfusion. Pathology conformed the diagnosis with free surgical margins. CONCLUSION Robotic right hepatectomy with tumor thrombectomy is feasible and safe even in the presence of lobar portal vein invasion. This video may help HPB surgeons perform this complex procedure.
Collapse
|
9
|
Andreou A, Knitter S, Schmelzle M, Kradolfer D, Maurer MH, Auer TA, Fehrenbach U, Lachenmayer A, Banz V, Schöning W, Candinas D, Pratschke J, Beldi G. Recurrence at surgical margin following hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases is not associated with R1 resection and does not impact survival. Surgery 2020; 169:1061-1068. [PMID: 33386128 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.11.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2020] [Revised: 10/30/2020] [Accepted: 11/16/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Resection margin status has traditionally been associated with tumor recurrence and oncological outcome following liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. Previous studies, however, did not address the impact of resection margin on the site of tumor recurrence and did not differentiate between true local recurrence at the resection margin and recurrence elsewhere in the liver. This study aimed to determine whether positive resection margins determine local recurrence and whether recurrence at the surgical margin influences long-term survival. METHODS Clinicopathological data and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent curative resection for colorectal liver metastases between 2012 and 2017 at 2 major hepatobiliary centers (Bern, Switzerland, and Berlin, Germany) were assessed. Cross-sectional imaging following hepatectomy was reviewed by radiologists in both centers to distinguish between recurrence at the resection margin, defined as hepatic local recurrence, and intrahepatic recurrence elsewhere. The association between surgical margin status and location of tumor recurrence was evaluated, and the impact on overall survival was determined. RESULTS During the study period, 345 consecutive patients underwent hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. Histologic surgical margins were positive for tumor cells (R1) in 63 patients (18%). After a median follow-up time of 34 months, tumor recurrence was identified in 154 patients (45%). Hepatic local recurrence was not detected more frequently after R1 than after R0 resection (P = .555). Hepatic local recurrence was not associated with worse overall survival (P = .436), while R1 status significantly impaired overall survival (P = .025). Additionally, overall survival was equivalent between patients with hepatic local recurrence and patients with any intrahepatic and/or extrahepatic recurrence. In patients with intrahepatic recurrence only, oncological outcomes improved if local hepatic therapy was possible (resection or ablation) in comparison to patients treated only with chemotherapy or best supportive care (3-year overall survival: 85% vs 39%; P < .0001). CONCLUSION The incidence of hepatic local recurrence after hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases is independent of R1 resection margin status. Additionally, hepatic local recurrence at the resection margin is not associated with worse overall survival compared with any other intra- or extrahepatic recurrence. Therefore, R1 status at hepatectomy seems to be a surrogate factor for advanced disease without influencing location of recurrence and thereby oncological outcome. This finding may support decision-making when extending the indication for surgery in borderline resectable colorectal liver metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas Andreou
- Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Sebastian Knitter
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Germany
| | - Moritz Schmelzle
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Germany
| | - Daniel Kradolfer
- Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Martin H Maurer
- Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric Radiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Uli Fehrenbach
- Department of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
| | - Anja Lachenmayer
- Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Vanessa Banz
- Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Wenzel Schöning
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Germany
| | - Daniel Candinas
- Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Johann Pratschke
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Germany
| | - Guido Beldi
- Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|