Clinical risk scores in the current era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy weakens the prognostic value of the pathological tumor burden score for colorectal cancer liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The pathological tumor burden score (TBS) has been proven to be a better risk stratification tool for liver metastasis of colorectal cancer than the traditional clinical risk score (CRS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the pathological tumor burden score in patients with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

METHODS

A total of 348 patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) who underwent curative hepatic resection were retrospectively enrolled from September 1999 to December 2016. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were conducted to identify the independent predictors of prognosis. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to determine whether TBS has enough discriminatory ability under certain grouping.

RESULTS

Patients who received NAC had a higher median TBS than patients who did not receive NAC (4.07 vs. 2.69, P < 0.001). Among patients who did not receive NAC, those with TBS > 3 showed a significantly worse 3-year RFS (41.1% vs. 63.6%, P < 0.001) and 3-year OS rate (73.3% vs. 84.1%, P = 0.003) than those with TBS ≤ 3. Among the patients who received NAC, those with TBS ≤ 3 or TBS > 3 showed comparable 3-year RFS (33.3% vs. 26.4%, P = 0.400) and 3-year OS rates (76.5% vs. 58.2%, P = 0.064) to those who did not. Regardless of the regimen and response to NAC, there was no significant difference about 3-year RFS and 3-year OS rates between the TBS ≤ 3 and TBS > 3 groups.

CONCLUSION

Pathological TBS can be applied to predict the RFS and OS of patients suffering from CRLM who did not receive NAC. However, pathological TBS might not be regard as prognosis in patients who did receive NAC.

Effect of tumour size ratio on liver recurrence-free survival of patients undergoing hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases

Background

The study aimed to assess the impact of size differences of multiple liver metastases on liver recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients undergoing hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs).

Methods

Overall, 147 patients with CRLMs who underwent hepatic resection between January 2010 and December 2016 were retrospectively analysed. Tumour size ratio (TSR) was defined as the maximum diameter of the largest liver lesion over the maximum diameter of the smallest liver lesion. The univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine independent prognostic risk factors. The prognostic value of the TSR was further explored in each Tumour Burden Score (TBS) zone. Log-rank survival analyses were used to compare liver RFS in the new clinical score and the Fong clinical score.

Results

Based on the TSR, patients were classified into three groups: TSR < 2, 2 ≤ TSR < 4, and TSR ≥ 4. According to the multivariate analysis, TSR of 2–4 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.580; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.543–4.312; P < 0.001) and TSR < 2 (HR, 4.435; 95% CI 2.499–7.872; P < 0.001) were associated with worse liver RFS. As TSR decreased, liver RFS worsened. TSR could further stratify patients in zones 1 and 2 into different risk groups according to the TBS criteria (zone 1: median liver RFS, 3.2 and 8.9 months for groups 1 and 2, respectively, P = 0.003; zone 2: median liver RFS, 3.5, 5.0, and 10.9 months for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, P < 0.05). The predictive ability of the new clinical score, which includes TSR, was superior to that of the Fong clinical score.

Conclusions

TSR, as a prognostic tool, could accurately assess the effect of size differences across multiple liver metastases on liver RFS in patients undergoing hepatectomy for CRLMs.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered

Which surgical strategy for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases provides the best outcome? A comparison between primary first, liver first and simultaneous approach

BACKGROUND

There is no clear consensus about the best surgical strategy for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous liver metastases (SCRLM).

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2019, patients with CRC and SCRLM considered for curative treatment were included. Perioperative and follow-up data were analysed to examine the safety and survival outcomes of primary first (PF), liver first (LF) and simultaneous resection (SR) strategies.

RESULTS

204 patients were identified, consisting of PF (n = 129), LF (n = 26) and SR (n = 49). Forty-five patients (22.1%) failed to have either the primary or the liver metastases resected following initial LF (n = 11, 42.3%) or PF (n = 34, 26.4%), respectively (p < 0.001). The postoperative morbidity rates were 31.0%, 38.4% and 40.8% in PF, LF and SR group, respectively (p = 0.409); the mortality rates were 2.3%, 0% and 4.1%, respectively (p = 0.547). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) were 94%, 72%, 53% in the PF group, 74%, 54%, 36% in the LF group, and 91%, 74%, 63% in the SR group. LF group had the worst OS compared to PF and SR (p = 0.040, p = 0.052). The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) were 31%, 15%, 10% in PF, 21%, 9% and 9% in LF and 45%, 28% and 28% in SR group, respectively. SR group had a better DFS compared to PF and LF (p = 0.005, p = 0.008). At the multivariate analysis, there was no difference between the three strategies in terms of OS (PF vs SR OS-HR 1.090, p = 0.808; LF vs SR OS-HR 1.582, p = 0.365) and the PF had a worse DFS compared to the SR approach (PF vs SR DFS-HR 1.803, p = 0.007; LF vs SR DFS-HR 1.252, p = 0.492).

CONCLUSIONS

PF, LF and SR had comparable postoperative morbidity and mortality. The three surgical strategies had similar OS outcomes. The PF strategy was associated with a worse DFS than SR, while the LF approach was associated with a high failure rate to progress to the second stage (primary tumour resection).

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been increasingly used in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases. However, the efficacy and safety of NAC in the treatment of resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are still controversial.

AIM

To assess the efficacy and application value of NAC in patients with resectable CRLM.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2020 to collect clinical studies comparing NAC with non-NAC. Data processing and statistical analyses were performed using Stata V.15.0 and Review Manager 5.0 software.

RESULTS

In total, 32 studies involving 11236 patients were included in this analysis. We divided the patients into two groups, the NAC group (that received neoadjuvant chemotherapy) and the non-NAC group (that received no neoadjuvant chemotherapy). The meta-analysis outcome showed a statistically significant difference in the 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival between the two groups. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were HR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.39-0.61, P = 0.000 and HR = 0.48 95%CI: 0.36-0.63, P = 0.000. The duration of surgery in the NAC group was longer than that of the non-NAC group [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.01-0.82, P = 0.044)]. The meta-analysis showed that the number of liver metastases in the NAC group was significantly higher than that in the non-NAC group (SMD = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.02-1.43, P = 0.043). The lymph node metastasis in the NAC group was significantly higher than that in the non-NAC group (SMD = 1.24, 95%CI: 1.07-1.43, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

We found that NAC could improve the long-term prognosis of patients with resectable CRLM. At the same time, the NAC group did not increase the risk of any adverse event compared to the non-NAC group.

Molecular Determinants and Other Factors to Guide Selection of Patients for Hepatic Resection of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) has changed significantly over the last few decades as cytotoxic and targeted chemotherapies have evolved and resection of (technically feasible) colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has become standard of care for eligible patients. Overall, survival for metastatic CRC has considerably improved, but recurrences are common. Numerous clinical risk scores have been suggested to guide patient selection for CRLM resection, but none perfectly predict outcomes; therefore, a personalized approach to metastatic CRC treatment using genetic profiles for risk stratification and prognostication is a critically important advancement. All patients with suspected metastatic CRC should undergo genetic testing for common oncogene mutations (e.g., KRAS, BRAF, and NRAS) in addition to a triphasic CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis; if hepatectomy may be entertained and there is concern about the future liver remnant (FLR), liver volumetrics should also be performed. MRI and PET are useful adjuncts for cases in which diagnosis or extent of disease is unclear. The decision to operate should be individualized and based on each patient's condition, tumor biology, and technical resectability. Genetic profiles should be used to inform multidisciplinary meetings surrounding topics of chemotherapy and surgical resection, as well as patient discussions concerning the risks and benefits of surgery. In the end, most patients with technically resectable colorectal cancers and adequate cardiopulmonary fitness benefit from surgical resection, as it remains the only chance of long-term survival.

Size of the Largest Colorectal Liver Metastasis Is an Independent Prognostic Factor in the Neoadjuvant Setting

BACKGROUND

Up to 50% of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer develop metastases during the course of their disease. Surgical resection remains the only curative treatment option for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), frequently in conjunction with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study sought to determine if the pathologic size of the largest CRLM impacted disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with CRLM who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy for liver resection at the Massachusetts General Hospital between 2004 and 2016 were reviewed. The median size of the largest liver lesion was used as the cutoff for grouped evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 214 patients were included. Median follow-up was 100.0 mo (interquartile range 68.9-133.8 mo). The median size of the largest lesion was 21 mm. Patients with lesions ≥21 mm exhibited significantly worse median DFS (12.5 mo versus 16.6 mo; P = 0.033) and median DSS (71.3 mo versus 103.5 mo; P = 0.038). CRLM lesions ≥21 mm were associated with poorer DFS on univariate analysis (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.95 P = 0.033) and multivariable analysis (HR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.07-2.35, P = 0.023). CRLM lesions ≥21 mm were also independently associated with poorer DSS after liver resection on univariate analysis (HR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.02-2.24; P = 0.037) and multivariable analysis (HR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.27-3.07; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The size of the largest CRLM is an important prognostic factor for both DFS and DSS after neoadjuvant therapy and serves as a useful indicator of tumor biology.

Colorectal liver metastases: Current management and future perspectives

The liver is the commonest site of metastatic disease for patients with colorectal cancer, with at least 25% developing colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) during the course of their illness. The management of CRLM has evolved into a complex field requiring input from experienced members of a multi-disciplinary team involving radiology (cross sectional, nuclear medicine and interventional), Oncology, Liver surgery, Colorectal surgery, and Histopathology. Patient management is based on assessment of sophisticated clinical, radiological and biomarker information. Despite incomplete evidence in this very heterogeneous patient group, maximising resection of CRLM using all available techniques remains a key objective and provides the best chance of long-term survival and cure. To this end, liver resection is maximised by the use of downsizing chemotherapy, optimisation of liver remnant by portal vein embolization, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and combining resection with ablation, in the context of improvements in the functional assessment of the future remnant liver. Liver resection may safely be carried out laparoscopically or open, and synchronously with, or before, colorectal surgery in selected patients. For unresectable patients, treatment options including systemic chemotherapy, targeted biological agents, intra-arterial infusion or bead delivered chemotherapy, tumour ablation, stereotactic radiotherapy, and selective internal radiotherapy contribute to improve survival and may convert initially unresectable patients to operability. Currently evolving areas include biomarker characterisation of tumours, the development of novel systemic agents targeting specific oncogenic pathways, and the potential re-emergence of radical surgical options such as liver transplantation.

Impact of multidisciplinary tumour boards (MTB) on the clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of resected colorectal liver metastases across time

Background

Resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) has been established as the standard of care. This study aims to compare the change in clinicopathological characteristics of patients who underwent curative resection of CLM across two time periods—2000 to 2010 (P1) and 2011 to 2016 (P2) and evaluate the prognostic impact of these characteristics on survival outcomes.

Methods

Patients who undergo liver resection for CLM at Singapore General Hospital from January 2000 to December 2016 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. The primary end point was overall survival.

Results

There were 183/318 (57.5%) patients and 135/318 (42.5%) patients in P1 and P2, respectively. There was a lower proportion of patients who had nodal metastases from primary colorectal cancer and clinical risk score (CRS) less than 3 in P2 when compared to P1. There was no difference in survival between both time periods. Independent predictors of survival for the cohort were CEA levels ≥ 200 ng/ml, primary tumour grade and lymph nodal status. Independent predictors of poor survival in P1 were poorly differentiated colorectal cancer and nodal metastases while in P2, independent predictors of poor survival were multiple liver metastases and nodal metastases.

Conclusion

Nodal metastases from primary colorectal cancer are an independent predictor of poor survival across time for resectable CLM. Although there is no difference in survival between the two time periods, patients with multiple liver metastases should be carefully considered prior to surgery as it is also an independent predictor of overall survival.

Colorectal liver metastases: An update on multidisciplinary approach

Liver metastasis is the commonest form of distant metastasis in colorectal cancer. Selection criteria for surgery and liver-directed therapies have recently been extended. However, resectability remains poorly defined. Tumour biology is increasingly recognized as an important prognostic factor; hence molecular profiling has a growing role in risk stratification and management planning. Surgical resection is the only treatment modality for curative intent. The most appropriate surgical approach is yet to be established. The primary cancer and the hepatic metastasis can be removed simultaneously or in a two-step approach; these two strategies have comparable long-term outcomes. For patients with a limited future liver remnant, portal vein embolization, combined ablation and resection, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy have been advocated, and each has their pros and cons. The role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy is still debated. Targeted biological agents and loco-regional therapies (thermal ablation, intra-arterial chemo- or radio-embolization, and stereotactic radiotherapy) further improve the already favourable results. The recent debate about offering liver transplantation to highly selected patients needs validation from large clinical trials. Evidence-based protocols are missing, and therefore optimal management of hepatic metastasis should be personalized and determined by a multi-disciplinary team.

Genetic And Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score for patients with colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

This study sought to develop a clinical risk score for resectable colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) by combining clinicopathological and clinically available biological indicators, including KRAS.

METHODS

A cohort of patients who underwent resection for CRLM at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) was analysed to identify independent predictors of overall survival (OS) that can be assessed before operation; these factors were combined into the Genetic And Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score. The score was compared with the current standard (Fong score) and validated in an external cohort of patients from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC).

RESULTS

Six preoperative predictors of worse OS were identified on multivariable Cox regression analysis in the JHH cohort (502 patients). The GAME score was calculated by allocating points to each patient according to the presence of these predictive factors: KRAS-mutated tumours (1 point); carcinoembryonic antigen level 20 ng/ml or more (1 point), primary tumour lymph node metastasis (1 point); Tumour Burden Score between 3 and 8 (1 point) or 9 and over (2 points); and extrahepatic disease (2 points). The high-risk group in the JHH cohort (GAME score at least 4 points) had a 5-year OS rate of 11 per cent, compared with 73·4 per cent for those in the low-risk group (score 0-1 point). Importantly, in cohorts from both the JHH and MSKCC (747 patients), the discriminatory capacity of the GAME score was superior to that of the Fong score, as demonstrated by the C-index and the Akaike information criterion.

CONCLUSION

The GAME score is a preoperative prognostic tool that can be used to inform treatment selection.

Survival prediction in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases: Clinical risk scores and tumor response to chemotherapy

Clinical risk scores and response to pre-operative chemotherapy are prognostic factors of colorectal liver metastases. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of combining these factors to predict patient survival and to select patients for curative therapy. The study included 189 patients who underwent hepatectomy following neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, for initially resectable colorectal liver metastases, between January 2005 and December 2015. Patients were stratified into four sub-groups: A1-2, low clinical risk scores with/without a response to pre-operative chemotherapy; and B1-2, high clinical risk scores with or without a response to pre-operative chemotherapy. Treatment and survival data were analysed. Survival was significantly longer in patients with low clinical risk scores and a response to pre-operative chemotherapy; these factors were confirmed as independent prognostic factors by multivariate analysis. Combining clinical risk score and chemotherapy response classification, patient survival was significantly longer for groups A1-2/B1 compared with for group B2, in which only 10.2% of patients were alive after 5 years. Of those with no response to first-line chemotherapy, survival was significantly longer in patients who responded to second-line chemotherapy. A combined clinical risk score and chemotherapy response classification may aid in identifying suitable candidates for potentially curative therapy.