Comparative effectiveness of chemotherapy vs resection of the primary tumour as the initial treatment in older patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer

Primary tumor resection with or without metastasectomy for left- and right-sided stage IV colorectal cancer: an instrumental variable analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether primary tumor location (PTL) is predictive of survival benefits following primary tumor resection plus metastasectomy (PMTR) and primary tumor resection (PTR) alone in stage IV colorectal cancer patients is not known. We sought to address this issue by employing instrumental variable analysis to evaluate the efficacy of PMTR and PTR with stratification for primary tumor location in stage IV colorectal cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Stage IV colorectal cancer patients diagnosed between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute. To account for both measured and unmeasured confounders, the efficacy of PMTR and PTR in the left- and right-sided subgroups was evaluated using instrumental variable analysis, with the health service area as the instrument variable. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 50,333 eligible patients were analyzed (left-sided, n = 29,402 and right-sided, n = 20,931). OS was significantly better with PMTR than with other treatments (PTR, metastasectomy only, or no surgery) in patients with left-sided tumors (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37 [95% CI 0.24-0.58], P < 0.001), but not in patients with right-sided tumors (HR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.65-1.47], P = 0.910; interaction test P < 0.001). OS was comparable in patients treated with PTR and those treated with no surgery in both the left-sided (HR = 1.11 [95% CI 0.68-1.81], P = 0.690) and right-sided (HR = 0.85 [95% CI 0.50-1.43], P = 0.530; interaction test P = 0.466) subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

PMTR appears to only benefit patients with left-sided stage IV colorectal cancer but not those with right-sided tumors. PTR does not improve OS, regardless of primary tumor location. When selecting patients for PMTR, primary tumor location should be considered. Overuse of PTR should be avoided.

Prognostic factors of survival in stage IV colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis: Negative effect of the KRAS mutation

The aim of the present study was to identify predictive parameters of survival in patients affected by stage IV colorectal cancer with synchronous and bilateral liver metastases. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients diagnosed between January 2013 and December 2018 were included in the present study. Data on the histopathological, clinical and treatment factors (chemotherapy as the first measure or resection of the primary tumor) were collected. The effect of each variable on survival was evaluated using Cox regression analysis. A total of 104 patients were included [43 women (41.3%) and 61 men (58.7%); mean age, 63 years]. The long-term survival rate at 36 months was 29% (median, 25 months). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate that survival was higher in patients with wild-type KRAS tumors (42%) than in patients with mutated KRAS tumors (9%; P=0.001). In the multivariate analysis, KRAS mutation (HR, 2.484; 95% CI, 1.472-4.192), T4 tumors (HR, 1.795; 95% CI, 1.045-3.084), resection/local treatment of hepatic metastases (HR, 0.447; 95% CI, 0.222-0.901), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (HR, 1.632; 95% CI, 1.182-2.254), were revealed to have independent predictive value. The type of treatment (chemotherapy or resection of the primary tumor) did not influence the survival. The results indicated that mutation of the KRAS gene was an important prognostic factor and associated with survival.

Hepatectomy is associated with survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An observational study by instrumental variable analysis

Liver resection (LR) is a major treatment modality in select patients with stage I-III Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), yet many studies demonstrated low rates of resection. The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether increasing resection rates would result in an increase in average survival in patients with stage I-III ICC.Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 registry database for 2004 through 2015 was retrieved for the present study. Propensity score matching was performed to eliminate possible bias. In addition, instrumental variable (IV) analysis was utilized to adjust for both measured and unmeasured confounders.Among 2341 patients with clinical stage I-III ICC, we identified 1577 (67.4%) and 764 (32.6%) patients who received no treatment or LR, respectively. In the multivariable adjusted cohort, a clear prognostic advantage of LR was observed in overall survival (OS) (P < .001) and disease-specific survival (DSS) (P < .001) compared to patients who received no treatment. Estimates based on the IV analysis indicated that patients treated with LR had a significantly longer OS (P < .001) and DSS (P < .001) after adjusting confounding factors. In IV analyses stratified by American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor stage, we found that the better survival effects of LR on OS and DSS were consistent across all subgroups.Our outcomes indicated that LR was associated with a survival benefit for marginal patients with stage I-III ICC.

Surgical resection of T4 colon cancers: an NCDB propensity score-matched analysis of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches

Historically, T4 tumors of the colon have been a contraindication to minimally invasive resection. The purpose of this study was to conduct a National Cancer Database analysis to compare the outcomes after curative treatment for T4 colon cancer between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches. The US National Cancer Database was queried for patients with T4 adenocarcinoma of the colon who underwent curative resection. Groups were separated based on approach (open, laparoscopic, robotic). One to one nearest neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) ± 1% caliper was performed across surgical approach cohorts to balance potential confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze primary outcome of survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression. Inclusion criteria and PSM identified 876 cases per treatment approach (n = 2628). PSM provided adequate discrimination between treatment cohorts (0.6 < AUC < 0.8) and potential confounding covariates did not significantly differ between cohorts (all respective P > 0.05). Patients who underwent a robotic approach had lower odds of conversion to laparotomy compared to the laparoscopic cohort (P < 0.0001). Laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with increased odds of > 12 lymph nodes examined, decreased odds of positive margins, and decreased odds of 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality compared to the open approach. Cox-proportional hazards regression showed that both robotic and laparoscopic approaches were significantly associated with decreased mortality hazards relative to open. Both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries achieved improved oncologic outcomes and survival compared to open resection of T4 cancers. A robotic-assisted approach was significantly associated with a lower conversion rate compared to the laparoscopic approach. This case-matched study demonstrates safety of using minimally invasive techniques in T4 cancers.

Noncardiac-Related Morbidity, Mobility Limitation, and Outcomes in Older Adults With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

To examine the individual and combined associations of noncardiac-related conditions and mobility limitation with morbidity and mortality in adults with heart failure (HF).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a large, diverse group of adults with HF from five U.S. integrated healthcare delivery systems. We characterized patients with respect to the presence of noncardiac conditions (<3 vs ≥3) and/or mobility impairment (defined by the use/nonuse of a wheelchair, cane, or walker), categorizing them into four subgroups. Outcomes included all-cause death and hospitalizations for HF or any cause.

RESULTS

Among 114,553 adults diagnosed with HF (mean age: 73 years old, 46% women), compared with <3 noncardiac conditions/no mobility limitation, adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause death among those with <3 noncardiac conditions/mobility limitation, ≥3 noncardiac conditions/no mobility limitation, ≥3 noncardiac conditions/mobility limitation (vs) were 1.40 (95% CI, 1.31-1.51), 1.72 (95% CI, 1.69-1.75), and 1.93 (95% CI, 1.85-2.01), respectively. We did not observe an increased risk of any-cause or HF-related hospitalization related to the presence of mobility limitation among those with a greater burden of noncardiac multimorbidity. Consistent findings regarding mortality were observed within groups defined according to age, gender, and HF type (preserved, reduced, mid-range ejection fraction), with the most prominent impact of mobility limitation in those <65 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an additive association of mobility limitation, beyond the burden of noncardiac multimorbidity, on mortality for patients with HF, and especially prominent in younger patients.

National statistics about resection of the primary tumor in asymptomatic patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer and unresectable metastases. Need for improvement in data collection. A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with asymptomatic Stage IV colorectal cancer represent a significant heterogeneous group. National statistics represent an effective method to follow in real time the clinical outcomes of patients, and they may represent an important tool to analyze and to compare different therapeutic approaches. The aim of our study was to analyze the reviews of national data and single institutions reports, which compared the clinical outcomes of patients with asymptomatic Stage IV colorectal cancer and un-resectable metastases who had resection of the primary tumor with those who did not have resection. We gave special attention to the number of missing established relevant variables, to determine the appropriateness of the results of the published studies.

MATERIAL

We performed a systematic review of papers comparing patients who had and who had not primary tumor resection. Screened reports included the time of publication from June 2012 to June 2018; 2556 papers were identified and 27 were included into the review. The primary outcome was observed survival. We analyzed the number of major missing variables in National Data Bases and Single Institution Reports, to assess the overall validity of the conclusions of the analyzed reports.

RESULTS

In the majority of the reports and in the meta-analysis of studies with propensity score matching, resection of the primary tumor was correlated to improved survival and to the possibility for a better response to postoperative chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The high number of missing significant variables, and a clear clinical selection in single center reports make any analysis error-prone. National statistics might represent a valid method to follow in real time the clinical outcomes of these patients, comparing different therapeutic approaches. There is the need for improvement in national data collection, to make descriptive national statistics the ground for future progress in treatment. (PROSPERO) CRD 42018089691.

Predictors of palliative treatment in stage IV colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Palliative treatment may be associated with prolonged survival and improved quality of life, but remains underutilized in stage IV colorectal (CRC). We examined a national cohort of stage IV CRC patients to determine the factors associated with palliative treatment.

METHODS

Stage IV CRC patients, classified based on their survival length (<6 months, 6-24 months, and 24 + months), were analyzed using the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Data Base (2004-2013). Multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate factors associated with palliative treatment.

RESULTS

Of 85,981 patients analyzed, 10.9% received palliative treatment. For 6-24 months survival, a more recent year of diagnosis, Medicaid, uninsured status, Mountain and Pacific regions were associated with higher odds of palliative treatment. For those who survived < 6months, older patients had lower odds, while academic centers and residence > 20 miles from treating institutions were associated with increased likelihood of palliative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative treatment in stage IV CRC is associated with a more recent year of diagnosis, Medicaid, academic centers, Mountain and Pacific regions of the US.

A systematic analysis highlighting deficiencies in reported outcomes for patients with stage IV colorectal cancer undergoing palliative resection of the primary tumour

BACKGROUND

Management of the primary tumour in the presence of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is controversial. The role of primary tumour resection (PTR) has been investigated by a number of retrospective cohort studies, with a number on going randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical and patient-reported outcomes currently reported in studies that evaluate the role of PTR in mCRC.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE (via OvidSP) (1966-June 2017), EMBASE (via OvidSP) and the Cochrane Library using terms related to colorectal cancer and primary tumour resection. All studies documenting outcomes following palliative PTR were included. Eligible articles were assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I) tool.

RESULTS

Of 11,209 studies screened, 59 non-randomised studies reporting outcomes on 331,157 patients were included. Patient characteristics regarding performance status and co-morbidity were recorded in 26 (44.1%) and 17 (28.8%) studies. The chemotherapy regime used was reported in 27 (45.8%) studies. The operative setting and the operative approach was reported in 42 (71%) and 14 (23.7%) studies. Post-operative mortality and morbidity were reported in 33 (55.9%) and 35 (59.3%) studies. Overall survival was reported in 49 (83.1%) studies, with 5 different definitions identified. Quality of life was only reported in 1 (1.7%) study.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcomes reported following PTR in mCRC. There is significant heterogeneity with a significant under-reporting of important outcomes such as treatment related adverse events and patient reported outcomes.

Survival outcomes following primary tumor resection for patients with incurable metastatic colorectal carcinoma: Experience from a single institution

OBJECTIVE

Palliative primary tumor resection (PTR) has been used for preventing and treating tumor-related complications. We aimed to determine whether PTR can increase overall survival (OS) in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database in a single center was performed. Patients diagnosed with metastatic CRC from January 2004 to December 2014 were included. Patients who had attained curative resection or had disease recurrence were excluded. All patients were discussed at a multidisciplinary tumor board where subsequent treatment decisions were made.

RESULTS

Altogether 408 patients were analyzed. Of these 145 received PTR with palliative chemotherapy (PC; group A), 110 received PC only (group B), 52 received PTR only (group C), while 101 received neither PTR nor PC (group D). Undergoing PTR led to statistically significant improvement in OS (22.7 months vs 12.1 months vs 6.9 months vs 2.7 months, P < 0.001). We performed subgroup analyses to control for potential confounders and found that the influence of PTR on OS persisted. With multivariate analysis, the predictors of poor OS were no PTR (hazards ratio [HR] 2.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.96, P < 0.001), no PC (HR 4.25, 95% CI 3.27-5.33, P < 0.001) and the presence of peritoneal metastases (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.78, P = 0.018). Diversion surgery did not lead to a statistical difference in OS.

CONCLUSIONS

The absences of PTR and PC, and peritoneal metastases are independently associated with decreased OS in patients with unresectable metastatic CRC. Randomized controlled trials are needed to verify this observation.

Primary tumor location as a predictor of the benefit of palliative resection for colorectal cancer with unresectable metastasis

Background

It is still under debate that whether stage IV colorectal cancer patients with unresectable metastasis can benefit from primary tumor resection, especially for asymptomatic colorectal cancer patients. Retrospective studies have shown controversial results concerning the benefit from surgery. This retrospective study aims to evaluate whether the site of primary tumor is a predictor of palliative resection in asymptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer patients.

Methods

One hundred ninety-four patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer were selected from Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center Database in the period between January 2007 and December 2013. All information was carefully reviewed and collected, including the treatment, age, sex, carcinoembryonic antigen, site of tumor, histology, cancer antigen 199, number of liver metastases, and largest diameter of liver metastasis. The univariate and multivariate analyses were used to detect the relationship between primary tumor resection and overall survival of unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer patients.

Results

One hundred twenty-five received palliative resection, and 69 received only chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis indicated that primary tumor site was one of the independent factors (RR 0.569, P = 0.007) that influenced overall survival. For left-side colon cancer patients, primary tumor resection prolonged the median overall survival time for 8 months (palliative resection vs. no palliative resection: 22 vs. 14 months, P = 0.009); however, for right-side colon cancer patients, palliative resection showed no benefit (12 vs. 10 months, P = 0.910).

Conclusions

This study showed that left-side colon cancer patients might benefit from the primary tumor resection in terms of overall survival. This result should be further explored in a prospective study.