Pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: health utility scores by EQ-5D-3L in a randomized controlled trial show no benefit from lung metastasectomy

Case Report: Long-term survival of a patient with advanced rectal cancer and multiple pelvic recurrences after seven surgeries

Background

Rectal cancer has a high risk of recurrence and metastasis, with median survival ranging from 24 months to 36 months. K-RAS mutation is a predictor of poor prognosis in rectal cancer. Advanced rectal cancer can be stopped in its tracks by pelvic exenteration.

Case summary

A 51-year-old woman was diagnosed with advanced rectal cancer (pT4bN2aM1b, stage IV) with the KRAS G12D mutation due to a change in bowel habits. The patient had experienced repeated recurrences of rectal cancer after initial radical resection, and the tumor had invaded the ovaries, sacrum, bladder, vagina and anus. Since the onset of the disease, the patient had undergone a total of seven surgeries and long-term FOLFIRI- or XELOX-based chemotherapy regimens, with the targeted agents bevacizumab and regorafenib. Fortunately, the patient was able to achieve intraoperative R0 resection in almost all surgical procedures and achieve tumor-free survival after pelvic exenteration. The patient has been alive for 86 months since her diagnosis.

Conclusions

Patients with advanced rectal cancer can achieve long-term survival through active multidisciplinary management and R0 surgery.

Impact of the extent of lung resection on postoperative outcomes of pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer metastases: an exploratory systematic review

Background

Pulmonary metastasectomy (PM) with curative intent has become a widely accepted treatment for lung metastases from solid tumours in selected patients, with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. In particular, PM is strongly recommended in selected patients with secondary lesions from colorectal cancer (CRC), due to its excellent postoperative prognosis. Nevertheless, the impact of the extent of PM on recurrence and survival remains controversial. This review aimed at assessing differences in short- and long-term postoperative outcomes depending on the extent of lung resection for lung metastases.

Methods

A systematic literature review of studies comparing anatomical and non-anatomical resections of lung metastases was performed (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration: 254931). A literature search for articles published in English between the date of database inception and January 31, 2021 was performed in EMBASE (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective studies, randomised and non-randomised controlled trials were included. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to determine the risk of bias for the primary outcome for included studies.

Results

Out of 432 papers, three retrospective non-randomised studies (1,342 patients) were selected for systematic reviewing. Although our search design did not exclude any primary tumour histology, all selected studies investigated surgical resection of lung metastases from CRC. Because of variations in the compared surgical approaches to pulmonary metastases, a meta-analysis proved unfeasible. There was a tendency to perform anatomical resections for larger metastases. Multivariate analyses revealed that anatomical resections were protective for recurrence-free survival (RFS), while the impact of such procedures on overall survival (OS) remained uncertain. A significantly higher incidence of resection-margin recurrences was observed in patients who underwent non-anatomical resections.

Discussion

Anatomical resections of lung metastases from CRC seem to be associated with improved RFS. However, well-constructed comparative clinical trials focusing on the extent of PM are needed.

The full cohort of 512 patients and the nested controlled trial in 93 patients in the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) study raise doubts about the effective size at present claimed

A comparison of the relative merits of video-assisted pulmonary metastasectomy versus thoracotomy is predicated on the assumption that removal of asymptomatic lung metastases favourably influences survival and that it does so by a large degree. Recently published but long-awaited evidence from a prospective cohort study and a randomised trial of Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) challenges that assumption.

The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) burden of care study: Analysis of local treatments for lung metastases and systemic chemotherapy in 220 patients in the PulMiCC cohort

AIM

The aim of this work was to examine the burden of further treatments in patients with colorectal cancer following a decision about lung metastasectomy.

METHOD

Five teams participating in the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) study provided details on subsequent local treatments for lung metastases, including the use of chemotherapy. For patients in three groups (no metastasectomy, one metastasectomy or multiple local interventions), baseline factors and selection criteria for additional treatments were examined.

RESULTS

The five teams recruited 220 patients between October 2010 and January 2017. No lung metastasectomy was performed in 51 patients, 114 patients had one metastasectomy and 55 patients had multiple local interventions. Selection for initial metastasectomy was associated with nonelevated carcinoembryonic antigen, fewer metastases and no prior liver metastasectomy. These patients also had better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores and lung function at baseline. Four sites provided information on chemotherapy in 139 patients: 79 (57%) had one to five courses of chemotherapy, to a total of 179 courses. The patterns of survival after one or multiple metastasectomy interventions showed evidence of guarantee-time bias contributing to an impression of benefit over no metastasectomy. After repeated metastasectomy, a significantly higher risk of death was observed, with no apparent reduction in chemotherapy usage.

CONCLUSION

Repeated metastasectomy is associated with a higher risk of death without reducing the use of chemotherapy. Continued monitoring without surgery might reassure patients with indolent disease or allow response assessment during systemic treatment. Overall, the carefully collected information from the PulMICC study provides no indication of an important survival benefit from metastasectomy.

The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer cohort study: Analysis of case selection, risk factors and survival in a prospective observational study of 512 patients

AIM

We wanted to examine survival in patients with resected colorectal cancer (CRC) whose lung metastases are or are not resected.

METHODS

Teams participating in the study of Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) identified potential candidates for lung metastasectomy and invited their consent to join Stage 1. Baseline data related to CRC and fitness for surgery were collected. Eligible patients were invited to consent for randomization in the PulMiCC randomized controlled trial (Stage 2). Sites were provided with case report forms for non-randomized patients to record adverse events and death at any time. They were all reviewed at 1 year. Baseline and survival data were analysed for the full cohort.

RESULTS

Twenty-five clinical sites recruited 512 patients from October 2010 to January 2017. Data collection closed in October 2020. Before analysis, 28 patients with non-CRC lung lesions were excluded and three had withdrawn consent leaving 481. The date of death was known for 292 patients, 136 were alive in 2020 and 53 at earlier time points. Baseline factors and 5-year survival were analysed in three strata: 128 non-randomized patients did not have metastasectomy; 263 had elective metastasectomy; 90 were from the randomized trial. The proportions of solitary metastases for electively operated and non-operated patients were 69% and 35%. Their respective 5-year survivals were 47% and 22%.

CONCLUSION

Survival without metastasectomy was greater than widely presumed. Difference in survival appeared to be largely related to selection. No inference can be drawn about the effect of metastasectomy on survival in this observational study.

National variation in pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer

AIM

Evidence on patterns of use of pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer patients is limited. This population-based study aims to investigate the use of pulmonary metastasectomy in the colorectal cancer population across the English National Health Service (NHS) and quantify the extent of any variations in practice and outcome.

METHODS

All adults who underwent a major resection for colorectal cancer in an NHS hospital between 2005 and 2013 were identified in the COloRECTal cancer data Repository (CORECT-R). All inpatient episodes corresponding to pulmonary metastasectomy, occurring within 3 years of the initial colorectal resection, were identified. Multi-level logistic regression was used to determine patient and organizational factors associated with the use of pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer, and Kaplan-Meier and Cox models were used to assess survival following pulmonary metastasectomy.

RESULTS

In all, 173 354 individuals had a major colorectal resection over the study period, with 3434 (2.0%) undergoing pulmonary resection within 3 years. The frequency of pulmonary metastasectomy increased from 1.2% of patients undergoing major colorectal resection in 2005 to 2.3% in 2013. Significant variation was observed across hospital providers in the risk-adjusted rates of pulmonary metastasectomy (0.0%-6.8% of patients). Overall 5-year survival following pulmonary resection was 50.8%, with 30-day and 90-day mortality of 0.6% and 1.2% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows significant variation in the rates of pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer across the English NHS.

Randomised Controlled Trial Evidence Questions the Assumption that Pulmonary Metastasectomy Benefits Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Pulmonary metastasectomy for sarcoma is surgery without proven benefit, and in the light of a randomized controlled trial examining pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer, it should be questioned.

Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Patients with Lung Metastases from Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) develop lung-only metastases. Data regarding the potential role of lung metastasectomy are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this case-control study was to determine whether lung metastasectomy prolongs survival in patients with NPC with lung-only metastases.

METHODS

The resectability of 215 consecutive patients diagnosed with lung-only metastases from 2001 to 2018 was reviewed by doctors blinded to the patient groups. The propensity score matching method was used to balance the potential probability of being assigned to treatment groups based on pretherapeutic information. Postmetastatic survival (PMS) and cumulative incidence of local failure were compared between the surgical and nonsurgical arms.

RESULTS

Overall, 120 potentially resectable cases were enrolled, and 45 and 22 patients who underwent and did not undergo metastasectomy, respectively, were included in the propensity-matched cohort. Patients who underwent pulmonary resection had better PMS and a lower cumulative incidence of local failure than those who did not undergo surgery. The 5-year PMS rates were 75.53% and 47.81% in the surgical and nonsurgical arms, respectively (difference 27.72%; 95% confidence interval 3.95-51.49%). Younger patients (≤ 45 years), and those with a lower primary N stage (N0-1), longer disease-free interval (> 2 years), smaller total diameter of the metastatic lesions (≤ 3 cm), unilateral distribution of metastases, no mediastinal/hilar lymph node involvement, and adjuvant chemotherapy showed a significantly longer PMS after metastasectomy by multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung metastasectomy may improve PMS and decrease the chance of local treatment failure in NPC patients with potentially resectable lung-only metastases.

Is survival really better after repeated lung metastasectomy?

Several groups have observed that average survival time after a second lung metastasectomy is longer than after a first metastasectomy. The randomised controlled trial Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) found no survival benefit from lung metastasectomy. In fact, median survival was longer, and four-year overall survival was higher, in the control group than in those randomly assigned to metastasectomy, although not significantly so. The illusion of benefit is because survival without metastasectomy has been assumed to be near zero, as stated in Society of Thoracic Surgeons' Expert Consensus Document on Pulmonary Metastasectomy 2019. It has been repeatedly found that survival is influenced by the selection of patients who have characteristics associated with better prognosis. The passage of time while monitoring and assessing patients, and observing their rate of progression, provides for immortal time bias. Reselection of the most favourable patients for repeated metastasectomy is the likely reason for any differences in survival between first and repeated metastasectomy operations.