Potential of a cure in patients with colorectal liver metastases and concomitant extrahepatic disease

Surgical strategy for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver and extrahepatic metastases: A scoring system and decision tree model

BACKGROUND

The role of hepatectomy in a specific group of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastases (SCRLM) and synchronous extrahepatic disease (SEHD) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of liver surgery and define the selection criteria for surgical candidates in patients with SCRLM + SEHD.

METHODS

Between July 2007 and October 2018, 475 patients with colorectal cancer with liver metastases (CRLM) who underwent liver resection were retrospectively reviewed. Sixty-five patients with SCRLM + SEHD were identified and included in the study. Clinical pathological data of these patients were analyzed to evaluate the influence on survival. Important prognostic factors were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. The risk score system and decision tree analysis were generated according to the important prognostic factors for better patient selection.

RESULTS

The 5-year survival rate of patients with SCRLM + SEHD was 21.9%. The most important prognostic factors were SCRLM number of more than five, site of SEHD other than the lung only, inability to achieve SCRLM + SEHD R0 resection, and BRAF mutation of cancer cells. The proposed risk score system and decision tree model easily discriminated between patients with different survival rates and identified the profile of suitable surgical patients.

CONCLUSION

Liver surgery should not be a contraindication for patients with SCRLM + SEHD. Patients with complete SCRLM + SEHD R0 resection, SCRLM number less than or equal to five, SEHD confined to the lung only, and wild-type BRAF could have favorable survival outcomes. The proposed scoring system and decision tree model may be beneficial to patient selection in clinical use.

Current trends in regenerative liver surgery: Novel clinical strategies and experimental approaches

Liver resections are performed to cure patients with hepatobiliary malignancies and metastases to the liver. However, only a small proportion of patients is resectable, largely because only up to 70% of liver tissue is expendable in a resection. If larger resections are performed, there is a risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure. Regenerative liver surgery addresses this limitation by increasing the future liver remnant to an appropriate size before resection. Since the 1980s, this surgery has evolved from portal vein embolization (PVE) to a multiplicity of methods. This review presents an overview of the available methods and their advantages and disadvantages. The first use of PVE was in patients with large hepatocellular carcinomas. The increase in liver volume induced by PVE equals that of portal vein ligation, but both result only in a moderate volume increase. While awaiting sufficient liver growth, 20%–40% of patients fail to achieve resection, mostly due to the progression of disease. The MD Anderson Cancer Centre group improved the PVE methodology by adding segment 4 embolization (“high-quality PVE”) and demonstrated that oncological results were better than non-surgical approaches in this previously unresectable patient population. In 2012, a novel method of liver regeneration was proposed and called Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). ALPPS accelerated liver regeneration by a factor of 2–3 and increased the resection rate to 95%–100%. However, ALPPS fell short of expectations due to a high mortality rate and a limited utility only in highly selected patients. Accelerated liver regeneration, however, was there to stay. This is evident in the multiplicity of ALPPS modifications like radiofrequency or partial ALPPS. Overall, rapid liver regeneration allowed an expansion of resectability with increased perioperative risk. But, a standardized low-risk approach to rapid hypertrophy has been missing and the techniques used and in use depend on local expertise and preference. Recently, however, simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization (PVE/HVE) appears to offer both rapid hypertrophy and no increased clinical risk. While prospective randomized comparisons are underway, PVE/HVE has the potential to become the future gold standard.

Repeat Resection for Advanced Colorectal Liver Metastases-Does it have the Potential for Cure?

BACKGROUND

Although surgical resection is the only potential treatment for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM), the actual cure is rare in patients with advanced CLM. Repeat resection (RR) is the most effective treatment in patients with recurrence; however, whether patients with initially advanced CLM achieve cure throughout RR or experience repeated recurrence even after RR remains unclear. In this study, we analyzed whether patients with advanced CLM achieve cure after RR.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent initial hepatectomy with curative intent for CLM from January 1999 to August 2007 were included. Patients who were alive at 10 years from the initial hepatectomy without any evidence of recurrence were defined as cured. Cure rates were compared between patients with Fong's clinical risk score (CRS) of ≥ 3 and those with CRS of ≤ 2.

RESULTS

A total of 257 patients were included and followed up. Among them, 93 (36.2%) patients achieved actual cure postoperatively. The cure rate of patients with a CRS of ≥ 3 was 32.4% (33/102), which was not different from that of patients with a CRS of ≤ 2 (38.7% [60/155]; p = 0.299), although former patients had higher recurrence rate after the initial hepatectomy than latter ones (85.3% vs. 72.3%; p = 0.014). The cure rates after the initial, second, and third resections were 23.0% (59/257), 30.0% (24/80), and 22.5% (7/31), respectively. In multivariate analysis, RR was determined as an independent favorable factor of achieving cure.

CONCLUSIONS

RR had a potential to cure patients with advanced CLM, and one-third of them achieved cure.

Borderline resectable for colorectal liver metastases: Present status and future perspective

Surgical resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) may offer the best opportunity to improve prognosis. However, only about 20% of CRLM cases are indicated for resection at the time of diagnosis (initially resectable), and the remaining cases are treated as unresectable (initially unresectable). Thanks to recent remarkable developments in chemotherapy, interventional radiology, and surgical techniques, the resectability of CRLM is expanding. However, some metastases are technically resectable but oncologically questionable for upfront surgery. In pancreatic cancer, such cases are categorized as “borderline resectable”, and their definition and treatment strategies are explicit. However, in CRLM, although various poor prognosis factors have been identified in previous reports, no clear definition or treatment strategy for borderline resectable has yet been established. Since the efficacy of hepatectomy for CRLM was reported in the 1970s, multidisciplinary treatment for unresectable cases has improved resectability and prognosis, and clarifying the definition and treatment strategy of borderline resectable CRLM should yield further improvement in prognosis. This review outlines the present status and the future perspective for borderline resectable CRLM, based on previous studies.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of a Transdiaphragmatic Approach for Simultaneous Resection of Colorectal Liver and Lung Metastases

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes for simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal liver and lung metastases are unknown. To address this gap, we compared outcomes and costs of three strategies for such resection.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of synchronous colorectal liver and lung metastases during 2000-2018 were grouped by surgical strategy: simultaneous resection via a transdiaphragmatic approach (transdiaphragmatic) or separate abdominal and thoracic incisions (transthoracic) and nonsimultaneous staged resection (staged). Operative and postoperative outcomes, survival, cumulative lung recurrence, and surgical costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study included 63 patients, 29 with transdiaphragmatic, 14 with transthoracic, and 20 with staged resection. The groups had similar demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics. Lung resection-associated blood loss for the transdiaphragmatic group was similar to that for the transthoracic group (P = .165) but lower than that for the staged group (P = .006). Hospital stay was shorter for the simultaneous groups than for the staged group (P = .007). Median surgical costs were significantly higher in the staged group ($130,733, interquartile range [IQR] $91,109-$173,573) than in the transdiaphragmatic ($70,620, IQR $58,376-$86,203, P < .001) or transthoracic ($62,991, IQR $57,405-$98,862, P < .001) group but did not differ between the transdiaphragmatic and transthoracic groups (P = .786). Rates of postoperative complications, recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and cumulative lung recurrence were similar among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal liver and lung metastases via a transdiaphragmatic approach is associated with lower blood loss, lower costs, and similar survival compared with staged resection.

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

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

Comprehensive Evaluation of Relapse Risk (CERR) Score for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Development and Validation

BACKGROUND

The calculation of the tumor burden score (TBS) is not perfect because the bilobar spread of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) is neglected. The identification of an ideal prognostic scoring system for CRLM remains controversial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent curative intent liver resection for CRLM from one medical center were enrolled in cohort 1 (787 patients) and cohort 2 (162 patients). Tumor relapse-free survival (RFS) was the main outcome. A Cox regression model was used to identify independent predictors of prognosis. The time-dependent area under the curve, calibration curve, and C-index were employed to validate the predictive ability of the survival model.

RESULTS

Modified TBS (mTBS) was established by a mathematical equation with parameters including CRLM size, CRLM number, and unilobar or bilobar metastasis. Five preoperative predictors of worse RFS were identified in cohort 1 and incorporated into the Comprehensive Evaluation of Relapse Risk (CERR) score: KRAS/NRAS/BRAF-mutated tumor (1 point); node-positive primary (1 point); extrahepatic disease (1 point); carcinoembryonic antigen level > 200 ng/mL or carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) >200 U/mL (1 point); and mTBS between 5 and 11 (1 point) or 12 and over (2 points). Patients in cohort 1 were stratified by their CERR score into risk groups: the high-risk group (CERR score 4 or more), the medium-risk group (CERR score 2-3), and the low-risk group (CERR score 0-1). Importantly, internal validation in cohort 1 and further validation in cohort 2 both showed the superior discriminatory capacity of the CERR score.

CONCLUSION

mTBS should be promoted. The CERR score is a powerful prognostic tool that can help determine optimal clinical management strategies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This work resulted in the successful modification of the tumor burden score and development of a comprehensive and practical prognostic scoring system-the Comprehensive Evaluation of Relapse Risk (CERR) score. The CERR score, with a better prognostic discriminatory ability, outperformed the Fong score. Perhaps more importantly, the CERR score is a powerful prognostic tool because it unified the most consistently reported prognostic factors. Therefore, the CERR score can assist doctors in determining optimal clinical management strategies.

Debulking surgery for colorectal liver metastases: Foolish or chance?

Even with the recent advances of surgical techniques and systemic therapies, we are often facing patients with multinodular bilateral disease for whom neither R0 nor R1 resection appears possible to perform. For such extensive cases, the tumor debulking approaches might provide a survival benefit, provided that an objective tumor response is obtained with chemotherapy. Here, we review all the arguments which may defend this strategy and propose some recommendations.

Surgical resectability of multisite metastatic colorectal cancer: Pushing the limits while appropriately selecting patients

Management of multisite colorectal metastases is expanding to make curative resection possible for more patients who present with advanced disease. Patient selection, tumor biology, meticulous surgical technique, and thoughtful perioperative care are essential to extending the benefit to patients previously treated with palliative goals of care.

Current status of surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases

Liver metastasis (LM) is one of the major causes of death in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Approximately 60% of CRC patients develop LM during the course of their illness. About 85% of these patients have unresectable disease at the time of presentation. Surgical resection is currently the only curative treatment for patients with colorectal LM (CRLM). In recent years, with the help of modern multimodality therapy including systemic chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery, the outcomes of CRLM treatment have significantly improved. This article summarizes the current status of surgical treatment of CRLM including evaluation of resectability, treatment for resectable LM, conversion therapy and liver transplantation for unresectable cases, liver resection for recurrent CRLM and elderly patients, and surgery for concomitant hepatic and extra-hepatic metastatic disease (EHMD). We believe that with the help of modern multimodality therapy, an aggressive oncosurgical approach should be implemented as it has the possibility of achieving a cure, even when EHMD is present in patients with CRLM.

Validation of clinical prognostic scores for patients treated with curative-intent for recurrent colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Scoring systems were developed to stratify patients with colorectal liver metastases considered for liver resection into different risk groups. Such scores have never been evaluated in recurrent liver metastases. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether these scores are applicable to patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases and treated with curative intent.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 375 consecutive patients who underwent liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases between June 2010 and August 2015. Seventy-three patients developed liver-limited recurrence treated with curative intent. The predictive value of 6 scores (Fong, Sofocleous, Nagashima, Nordlinger, Konopke, and the Basingstoke index) was assessed in this set of patients.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 36.2 months. Overall survival and progression-free survival were 33.6 and 5.6 months, respectively. When scores were applied for OS, none showed a significant stratification between patients, although Nagashima's score showed a significant difference in overall survival between patients from the low-risk group and those from the intermediate- and high-risk groups (40.8 vs 30.5 months, P = 0.039). For PFS, only Fong's score showed a statistically significant stratification (6.6 vs 4.7 months, P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Scoring systems are of limited-value in stratifying patients operated on for recurrent colorectal liver metastases.