Selective versus routine lymphadenectomy in the treatment of liver metastasis from colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Characteristic radiological findings indicating the possible involvement of the hepatic hilar lymph nodes in patients with colorectal liver metastasis: Case report

•

Detection of colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRCLM) with the infiltration of lymph nodes (LNs) in the hepatic pedicle is not so simple.

•

When detecting tumor progression from CRCLM along with Glisson branch, the possibility of hepatic hilar LNs involvement should be considered.

•

Surgical approach against CRCLM with hepatic hilar LNs involvement is controversial, but could be acceptable.

Background

Colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRCLM) concomitant with infiltration of lymph nodes (LNs) in the hepatic pedicle is difficult to manage, and is regarded as an extrahepatic metastasis; undertaking hepatectomy is controversial in such a scenario.

Case presentation

Case 1, A 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with multiple liver metastases arising from rectal cancer along with enlargement of a retropancreatic LN. A characteristic image prior to hepatectomy demonstrated evident tumor progression from a metastatic lesion in segment 5 of the liver (S5) to the hepatic hilum along with Glisson 5. Post-operative histopathological examination revealed viable adenocarcinoma cancer cells originating from rectal cancer in all the liver metastatic lesions and retropancreatic LN.

Case 2, A 89-year-old woman was diagnosed with transverse colon cancer with multiple liver metastases. Radiological examination before hepatectomy revealed tumor progression from a metastatic lesion in the segment 6 of the liver (S6) to the hepatic hilum along with Glisson 6 and LN involvement in the hepatoduodenal ligament. Post-operative histopathological examination demonstrated adenocarcinoma cancer cells in the liver metastatic lesions and in a hepatoduodenal LN.

Conclusion

When encountering tumor progression from liver metastatic lesions to hepatic hilum along with its Glisson branch, the possibility of hepatic hilar LN involvement should be considered. Indeed, the surgical management of CRCLM with hepatic hilar LN involvement is controversial, but could be acceptable if the positive LNs are limited to the hepatic pedicle and retropancreatic area.

[The role of lymphadenectomy for treatment of colorectal liver metastases with regional lymph nodes involvement]

Liver resection remains the method of choice for treatment of colorectal liver metastases with good long-term results. Regional lymph nodes involvement is significant negative prognostic factor. Moreover, it has been considered as a contraindication for liver resection for a long time. The role of lymphadenectomy remains controversial. Current state of this problem is reviewed in the article. Liver regional lymph nodes involvement takes place in 10-20% of cases. PET/CT is the most sensitive method of preoperative diagnosis. Involvement of liver regional lymph nodes is currently not absolute contraindication for liver resection. Routine lymphadenectomy does not make sense, and, perhaps, is justified only within scientific trials for more accurate disease staging. Indications for lymphadenectomy are suspicious changes of lymph nodes revealed by preoperative visualization methods or by intraoperative exploration. Modern chemotherapy regimens allow to reconsider the prognostic importance of liver regional lymph node metastases and to extend indications for liver resections.

Additional lymphadenectomy might not improve survival of patients with resectable metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma of T4 stage, proximal location, poor/undifferentiation, or N3/N4 stages: a large population-based study

This study was performed to evaluate the prognostic effect of lymphadenectomy on outcomes in patients with resectable metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma (mCRC). We selected patients with mCRC from 2004 to 2013 from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database. Kaplan-Meier analysis, univariate Cox regression and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed to assess the clinical value of lymphadenectomy on overall survival (OS) and cause-specific survival (CSS) of patients with resectable mCRC. A total 24178 eligible patients were included, 23056 (95.36%) of which received lymphadenectomy. Results showed that lymphadenectomy was an independent protective factor for survival of patients with mCRC overall [OS (HR: 0.86, 95%CI: 0.79-0.93, P=0.002) and CSS (HR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.78-0.93, P<0.001)]. Further analysis showed that lymphadenectomy improved survival of patients with T1 stage [OS (HR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.39-0.66, P<0.001); CSS (HR: 0.48, 95%CI: 0.36-0.65, P<0.001)], distal [OS (HR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.56-0.75, P<0.001); CSS (HR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.65-0.75, P<0.001)], rectal [OS (HR: 0.60, 95%CI: 0.52-0.70, P<0.001); CSS (HR: 0.59, 95%CI: 0.51-0.69, P<0.001)] , well/moderately differentiated [OS (HR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.56-0.70, P<0.001); CSS (HR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.55-0.69, P<0.001)], N1 stage [OS (HR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.67-0.85, P<0.001); CSS (HR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.65-0.84, P<0.001)] and N2 stage [OS (HR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.54-0.74, P<0.001; CSS (HR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.55-0.77, P<0.001)) mCRC. While lymphadenectomy might not improve survival of patients with T4 stage, proximal, poor or undifferentiated, N3 and N4 stage mCRC. In general, Additional lymphadenectomy was suggested for patients with mCRC overall. However, lymphadenectomy might not improve survival of patients with mCRC of higher malignancy tendency, such as T4 stage, proximal location, poor or undifferentiation, N3 and N4 stages.