Long-Term Survival Benefit and Potential for Cure after R1 Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Cure after surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing curative-intent surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) malignancies may achieve statistical cure i.e., a mortality risk which aligns with the general population.

AIMS

To summarize the results of different cure models in HPB malignancies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search and selected studies on curative-intent surgery (hepatic resection, HR, or liver transplantation, LT) for HPB malignancies including a cure model in their analysis. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024528694).

RESULTS

Eleven studies reporting a cure model after HPB surgery for malignancy were included: 6 on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) two on biliary tract cancers (BTC), one on pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET), one on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and one on colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). In terms of OS, the cure fraction of HCC is 63.4 %-75.8 % with LT and 31.8 %-40.5 % with HR, achieved within 7.2-10 years and 7-14.4 years respectively. The cure fraction of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is 9.7 % in terms of DFS, but largely depends on tumor stage. PDAC and pNET display a cure fraction of 20.4 % and 57.1 % respectively in terms of DFS, confirming the impact of histotype on DFS.

CONCLUSION

Statistical cure for hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers can be achieved with surgery. The probability of cure depends on the interplay between tumor stage and aggressiveness, effectiveness of the surgical treatment and persistence of chronic conditions after surgery.

Have we improved postoperative and long-term outcomes of liver surgery for colorectal cancer metastasis? Analysis of 1736 hepatectomies performed over 3 decades in a single center

INTRODUCTION

Surgery is the only potentially curative treatment for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) and its indication and results have varied in the last 30 years.

METHODS

All patients operated on for CRLM in our centre from 1990 to 2021 were prospectively collected, establishing 3 subgroups based on the year of the first surgery: group A 1990-1999, group B 2000-2010, group C 2011-2021. Clinical characteristics and the results of survival, recurrence and prognostic factors were compared.

RESULTS

1736 hepatectomies were included (Group A n = 208; Group B n = 770; Group C n = 758). Patients in group C had better survival at 5 and 10 years (A 40.5%/28.2%; B 45.9%/32.2%; C 51.6%/33.1%, p = 0.013), although there were no differences between groups in overall recurrence at 5 and 10 years (A 73%/75.7%; B 67.6%/69.2%, and C 63.9%/66%, p = 0.524), nor in liver recurrence (A 46.4%/48.2%; B 45.8%/48.2%; and C 44.4%/48.4%, p = 0.899). An improvement was observed in median survival after recurrence, being 19 months, 23 months, and 31 months (groups A, B and C respectively). Prognostic factors of long-term survival changed over the 3 study periods. The only ones that remained relevant in the last decade were the presence of >4 liver metastasis, extrahepatic disease at the time of hepatectomy, and intraoperative blood transfusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival after surgery for CRLM has improved significantly, although this cannot be explained by a reduction in overall and hepatic recurrence, but rather by an improvement in post-recurrence survival. Involvement of the resection margin has lost prognostic value in the last decade.

Prognostic impact of R1 resection margin in synchronous and simultaneous colorectal liver metastasis resection: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A margin ≥ 1 mm is considered a standard resection margin for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). However, microscopic incomplete resection (R1) is not rare since aggressive surgical resection has been attempted in multiple and bilobar CRLM. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of resection margins and perioperative chemotherapy in patients with CRLM.

METHODS

A total of 368 of 371 patients who underwent simultaneous colorectal and liver resection for synchronous CRLM between 2006 and June 2017, excluding three R2 resections, were included in this study. R1 resection was defined as either abutting tumor on the resection line or involved margin in the pathological report. The patients were divided into R0 (n = 304) and R1 (n = 64) groups. The clinicopathological characteristics, overall survival, and intrahepatic recurrence-free survival were compared between the two groups using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The R1 group had more patients with ≥ 4 liver lesions (27.3 vs. 50.0%, P < 0.001), higher mean tumor burden score (4.4 vs. 5.8%, P = 0.003), and more bilobar disease (38.8 vs. 67.2%, P < 0.001) than the R0 group. Both R0 and R1 groups showed similar long-term outcomes in the total cohort (OS, P = 0.149; RFS, P = 0.414) and after matching (OS, P = 0.097, RFS: P = 0.924). However, the marginal recurrence rate was higher in the R1 group than in the R0 group (26.6 vs. 16.1%, P = 0.048). Furthermore, the resection margin did not have a significant impact on OS and RFS, regardless of preoperative chemotherapy. Poorly differentiated, N-positive stage colorectal cancer, liver lesion number ≥ 4, and size ≥ 5 cm were poor prognostic factors, and adjuvant chemotherapy had a positive impact on survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The R1 group was associated with aggressive tumor characteristics; however, no effect on the OS and intrahepatic RFS with or without preoperative chemotherapy was observed in this study. Tumor biological characteristics, rather than resection margin status, determine long-term prognosis. Therefore, aggressive surgical resection should be considered in patients with CRLM expected to undergo R1 resection in this multidisciplinary approach era.

Impact of microscopic incomplete resection for colorectal liver metastases on surgical margin recurrence: R1-Contact vs R1 < 1 mm margin width

BACKGROUND

Several studies highlighted an inferior outcome of R1 resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM); it is still unclear whether directly involved margins (R1-contact) are associated with a poorer outcome compared to R1 < 1 mm. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact on surgical margin recurrence (SMR) of R1-contact vs R1 < 1 mm patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery for CRLM between 2009-2018 with both R1 resections on final histology were included and compared in terms of recurrence and survival. Factors associated with SMR were assessed by univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 477, 77 (17.2%) patients showed R1 resection (53 R1-Contact and 24 R1 < 1 mm). Overall recurrence rate was 79.2% (R1 < 1 mm = 70.8% vs R1-contact group = 83%, P = .222). Median disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were significantly higher in R1 < 1 mm vs R1-contact group (93 vs 55 months; P = .025 and 69 vs 46 months; P = .038, respectively). The SMR rate was higher in R1-contact compared to R1 < 1 mm group (30.2% vs 8.3%; P = .036). At univariate analysis, age, number of metastases, open surgical approach, RAS status, and R1-contact were associated with SMR. At multivariate analysis, R1-contact margin was the only factor independently associated with higher SMR (OR = 5.6; P = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

R1-contact margin is independently associated with SMR after liver resection for CRLM. Patients with R1-contact margin will also experience poorer DFS and DSS.

Identifying Optimal Surgical Intervention-Based Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer Patients With Liver Metastases

Background

This study aimed at evaluating the effects of surgical treatments-based chemotherapy in the treatment of gastric cancer with liver metastases (GCLM). It has not been established whether Liver-directed treatment (LDT) options such as hepatectomy and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (HGCT), radiofrequency ablation and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (RFAG), transarterial chemoembolization and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (TACEG), gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (GCT) enhance the survival of GCLM patients.

Methods

We performed systematic literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library from inception to September 2021. We created a network plot to comprehensively analyze the direct and indirect evidence, based on a frequentist method. A contribution plot was used to determine inconsistencies, a forest plot was used to evaluate therapeutic effects, the publication bias was controlled by funnel plot, while the value of surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) was calculated to estimate rank probability.

Results

A total of 23 retrospective studies were identified, involving 5472 GCLM patients. For OS and 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate of all trials, meta-analysis of the direct comparisons showed significant better for HGCT treatments compared with GCT or PCT. In the comparison of the 5 treatments for 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate, HGCT and RFAG were found to be more effective than GCT and PCT, respectively. By OS and 2-, 3-year survival rate analysis, RFAG was identified as the best option, followed by HGCT, TACEG, GCT and PCT. By 1-year survival rate analysis, HGCT and RFAG were identified as the most effective options.

Conclusion

HGCT and RFAG has remarkable survival benefits for GCLM patients when compared to TACEG, GCT and PCT. HGCT was found to exhibit superior therapeutic effects for GCLM patients for 1-year survival rate while RFAG was found to be a prospective therapeutic alternative for OS and 2-, 3-year survival rate.

Systematic Review Registration

identifier [10.37766/inplasy2020.12.0009].

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.

The prognostic impact of resection margin status varies according to the genetic and morphological evaluation (GAME) score for colorectal liver metastasis

BACKGROUND

Surgical margin status remains a controversial factor in predicting the outcome of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) resection. Our study aims to evaluate the effects of surgical margins on oncologic outcomes with regard to the genetic and morphological evaluation (GAME) score.

METHODS

R1 resection was defined as having a less than 1 mm margin width. Patients who underwent surgery for CRLM from January 2005 to December 2018 were recruited. The patients were divided into two risk subgroups, namely, the low or medium risk (GAME 0-3) and high-risk (GAME score 4 or more) groups. The effects of margin status on overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival rate (RFS) were examined.

RESULTS

In total, 661 patients were recruited, among which 159 (24.1%) had R1 resection. Before hepatectomy, 514 patients showed a low or medium risk (R1 resection: n = 124), while 147 patients demonstrated a high risk (R1 resection: n = 35). In the whole cohort, multivariable analysis did show that R1 resection was associated with worse RFS and OS. While further research only found that in the low or medium risk group, R1 resection was related to poor OS and RFS. Meanwhile, in the high risk group, no significant difference was found in the median OS and RFS among patients with R0 or R1 resection.

CONCLUSION

The prognostic role of margin status varied according to the GAME score. Margin clearance only improved survival rates in patients with low or medium GAME score. In contrast, R1 resection demonstrated similar oncologic outcomes with R0 resection in patients with high GAME score.

Relevance of chemotherapy and margin status in colorectal liver metastasis

PURPOSE

This retrospective, single-center study aimed to investigate the importance of chemotherapy and to come up with the optimal liver resection margin length for patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM).

METHODS

Patients who had undergone any form of liver resection for CRLM were reviewed and analyzed. The analyses were broken down into three parts: (1) overall effect of chemotherapy, (2) effect of chemotherapy with positive/negative resection margin, and (3) result of discriminative analysis with optimal margin length analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 381 patients were studied. Among them, 279 received chemotherapy whereas 102 did not. Survival was significantly better in patients with chemotherapy (5-year, 43.6% vs. 25.8%) (p < 0.001). Patients who received chemotherapy (n = 93) with negative margins had better survival than patients (n = 8) with positive margins (5-year, 28.1% vs. 0%) (p = 0.019). On multivariate analysis, margin involvement was the poor prognostic factor for survival. Patients who had chemotherapy (n = 238) with negative margin showed a trend of better survival than patients (n = 41) with positive margins (5-year, 45.7% vs. 29.3%) (p = 0.085). Patients (n = 93) with negative margin and no chemotherapy and patients (n = 41) with positive margin and chemotherapy had comparable survival at 5 years (p = 0.422). On multivariate analysis, tumor number was the prognostic factor for survival. By the discriminant method, 1.09 cm (sensitivity 0.242, specificity 0.718) was determined as the cut-off for optimal margin length. Patients who had margin ≥ 1.09 cm (n = 81) enjoyed significantly better survival (5-year, 54.3% vs. 33.5%) (p = 0.041). On multivariate analysis, margin length ≥ 1.09 cm was the prognostic factor for favorable survival.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated the important effect of perioperative chemotherapy and negative margin liver resection in management of patients suffered from CRLM.

Simultaneous colorectal and parenchymal-sparing liver resection for advanced colorectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: Between conventional and mini-invasive approaches

The optimal timing of surgery in case of synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases is still under debate. Staged approach, with initial colorectal resection followed by liver resection (LR), or even the reverse, liver-first approach in specific situations, is traditionally preferred. Simultaneous resections, however, represent an appealing strategy, because may have perioperative risks comparable to staged resections in appropriately selected patients, while avoiding a second surgical procedure. In patients with larger or multiple synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases, simultaneous major hepatectomies may determine worse perioperative outcomes, so that parenchymal-sparing LR should represent the most appropriate option whenever feasible. Mini-invasive colorectal surgery has experienced rapid spread in the last decades, while laparoscopic LR has progressed much slower, and is usually reserved for limited tumours in favourable locations. Moreover, mini-invasive parenchymal-sparing LR is more complex, especially for larger or multiple tumours in difficult locations. It remains to be established if simultaneous resections are presently feasible with mini-invasive approaches or if we need further technological advances and surgical expertise, at least for more complex procedures. This review aims to critically analyze the current status and future perspectives of simultaneous resections, and the present role of the available mini-invasive techniques.

Two-Stage Hepatectomy and ALPPS for Advanced Bilateral Liver Metastases: a Tailored Approach Balancing Risk and Outcome

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) with or without portal vein ligation (PVL) or portal vein embolization (PVE) and associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) are surgical strategies in the treatment of advanced colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The role of each strategy is yet ill defined. The aim of this analysis is to share our center experience with conventional TSH with or without PVL/PVE and ALPPS in patients with advanced bilateral CRLM.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from a prospectively collected institutional database. Complication rates according to the Dindo-Clavien classification, overall and recurrence-free survival data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2017, 790 liver resections were performed in 611 patients with CRLM. Out of 320 patients with bilateral disease, TSH (as right or extended right hepatectomy) with or without PVL/PVE was performed in 50 patients and ALPPS in 8. Stage 2 was completed in 36 (72%) out of 50 TSH/PVL/PVE and in all ALPPS patients (100%). Median follow-up was 15.8 months (0.9 to 111.9 months). On an intention-to-treat basis, the median overall survival was 26.7 (21.8-35.1 range) months after TSH/PVL/PVE and 36.2 months (11.3-61.2 range) after ALPPS (p = 0.809). In the TSH/PVL/PVE cohort, the median overall survival was 29.9 (19.0-40.3) months in patients who completed stage 2 compared to 13.8 months in patients who did not (p < 0.001). Disease recurred in 60% in the TSH/PVL/PVE cohort and in 87.5% in the ALPPS cohort (p = 0.777). The median recurrence-free survival was 5.9 (1.7-18.6) months after TSH/PVL/PVE and 3 (1.6-14.8) months after ALPPS (p = 0.680).

CONCLUSION

The treatment of advanced bilateral CRLM remains a surgical and oncological challenge. A tailored approach to bilateral CRLM uses TSH/PVL/PVE as first and ALPPS as second rescue treatment in order to achieve resectability in patients with extensive tumor burden not amenable to one-stage resection. ALPPS should be reserved for patients with no other surgical options.

Intention to Treat Laparoscopic Versus Open Hemi-Hepatectomy: A Paired Case-Matched Comparison Study

BACKGROUND

The benefits of laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy compared to open hemi-hepatectomy are not clear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to share our experience with the laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy compared to an open approach.

METHODS

A total of 40 consecutive laparoscopically started hemi-hepatectomy (intention-to-treat analysis) cases between August 2012 and October 2015 were matched against open cases using the following criteria: laterality of surgery and pathology (essential criteria); American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, pre-operative bilirubin, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, additional procedures, portal vein embolization, and presence of cirrhosis/fibrosis on histology (secondary criteria); age and gender (tertiary criteria). Hand-assisted and extended hemi-hepatectomy cases were excluded from the study. The two groups were compared for blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and oncological outcomes. All complications were quantified using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Two groups were well matched (p = 1.00). In the two groups, 10 patients had left and 30 had right hemi-hepatectomy. Overall conversion rate was 15%. Median length of hospital and high dependency unit stay was less in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy group: 6 versus 8 days, p = 0.025 and 1 versus 2 days, p = 0.07. Median operative time was longer in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy group: 420 min (range: 389.5-480) versus 305 min (range: 238.8-348.8; p = 0.001). Intra-operative blood loss was equivalent, but the overall blood transfusions were higher in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy (50 vs 29 units, p = 0.36). The overall morbidity (18 vs 20 patients, p = 0.65), mortality (2.5%), and the positive resection margin status were similar (18% vs 21%, p = 0.76). The 1- (87.5% vs 92.5%, p = 0.71) and 3-year survival (70% vs 72.5%, p = 1.00) was also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed lower hospital and high dependency unit stay in the laparoscopic group. However, the laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating time and a non-significant increase in blood transfusion requirements. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality, re-admission rate, and oncological outcomes.

Preoperative Chemotherapy and Resection Margin Status in Colorectal Liver Metastasis Patients: A Propensity Score–Matched Analysis

In this article, we compared the early and long-term outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy followed by resection with those of patients undergoing surgery first, focusing our analysis on resection margin status. Patients who underwent liver resection with curative intent for colorectal liver metastases from July 2001 to January 2018 were included in the analysis. Propensity score matching was used to reduce treatment allocation bias. The cohort comprised 164 patients; 117 (71.3%) underwent liver resection first, whereas the remaining 47 (28.7%) had preoperative chemotherapy. After a 1:1 ratio of propensity score matching, 47 patients per group were evaluated. A positive resection margin was found in 13 patients in the surgery-first group (25.5%) versus 4 (8.5%) in the preoperative chemotherapy group ( P = 0.029). Postmatched logistic regression analysis showed that only preoperative chemotherapy was significantly associated with the rate of positive resection margin (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.81; P = 0.022). Median follow-up was 41 months (interquartile range 8–69). Cox proportional hazard regression analysis revealed that only positive resection margin was a significant negative prognostic factor (hazard ratio 2.2, 95% CI 1.18–4.11; P = 0.014). Within the preoperative chemotherapy group, median overall survival was 40 months in R0 patients and 10 months in R1 patients ( P = 0.016). Although preoperative chemotherapy in colorectal liver metastasis patients may affect the rate of positive resection margin, its impact on survival seems to be limited. In the present study, the most important prognostic factor was the resection margin status.

Multidisciplinary approach of liver metastases from colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) represent most of the causes of death in patients with colorectal cancer. Surgical resection is the only treatment that can provide the possibility of prolonged survival, or even cure, for patients with CRLM. Over the last few decades, survival of these patients has improved dramatically thanks to more effective chemotherapy, extension of surgical indications, and development of new surgical procedures. In particular, patients with initially unresectable CRLM can achieve downsizing of the tumor by using various chemotherapies and the tumor can become resectable. It has been shown that such patients have a 33% 5‐year survival and a 23% 10‐year survival rate after surgery, which is a little bit lower than that of patents with resectable CRLM but significantly higher than patients without surgery. However, a decision‐making strategy for patients with CRLM is difficult because there is a wide variety of treatments and no definitive consensus. As an example, much variation among institutions exists on the resectability rate in patients with unresectable CRLM. Also, it is recommended that all patients with CRLM be managed by a multidisciplinary approach (MDA) to select the best strategy. In the future, new treatment procedures (e.g. immune checkpoint blockade, liver transplantation) may contribute to improve prognosis; hence, the necessity for MDA for the treatment of CRLM will further increase.

The impact of R1 resection for colorectal liver metastases on local recurrence and overall survival in the era of modern chemotherapy: An analysis of 1,428 resection areas

BACKGROUND

It is still unclear whether a positive surgical margin after resection of colorectal liver metastases remains a poor prognostic factor in the era of modern perioperative chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether preoperative chemotherapy has an impact on reducing local recurrence after R1 resection, and the impact of local recurrence on overall survival.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2014, a total of 421 patients underwent resection for colorectal liver metastases at our unit after preoperative chemotherapy. The overall number of analyzed resection areas was 1,428.

RESULTS

The local recurrence rate was 12.8%, significantly higher after R1 resection than after R0 (24.5% vs 8.7%; P < .001). These results were also confirmed in patients with response to preoperative chemotherapy (23.1% after R1 vs 11.2% after R0; P < .001). At multivariate analysis, R1 resection was the only independent risk factor for local recurrence (P < .001). At the analysis of the 1,428 resection areas, local recurrence significantly decreased according to the increase of the surgical margin width (from 19.1% in 0 mm margin to 2.4% in ≥10 mm). At multivariable logistic regression analysis for overall survival, the presence of local recurrence showed a significant negative impact on 5-year overall survival (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Surgical margin recurrence after modern preoperative chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases was still significantly higher after R1 resection than it was after R0 resection. Local recurrence showed a negative prognostic impact on overall survival. R0 resection should be recommended whenever technically achievable, as well as in patients treated by modern preoperative chemotherapy.

Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy in the Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Current Scenario

Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) has expanded the surgical armamentarium for patients with advanced and bilateral colorectal liver metastases. However, the enthusiasm that the medical fraternity had about ALPPS was hampered by a high mortality rate and early and frequent tumor recurrence. While surgical safety has improved, mainly due to technical refinements and a better patient selection, the oncological value in the face of early tumor recurrence remains unclear. The only randomized controlled trial on ALPPS versus two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) so far confirmed that ALPPS led to higher resectability with comparable perioperative complication rate, but oncological outcome was not measured. Robust data regarding long-term outcome are still missing. TSH and ALPPS might be complementary strategies for the resection of colorectal liver metatsases (CRLM) with ALPPS being reserved for patients with no other surgical option, that is, after failed portal vein embolization or those with an extremely small future liver remnant. In other words, ALPPS can be considered a supplementary tool and a last resort in the liver surgeon's hand to offer resectability in otherwise nonresectable CRLM. In these individual cases, and always embedded into a multimodal treatment setting, ALPPS may offer a chance of complete tumor removal and prolonged survival and even a chance for cure.

Prognostic influence of hepatic margin after resection of colorectal liver metastasis: role of modern preoperative chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Modern chemotherapy (CTX) increases survival in stage IV colorectal cancer. In colorectal liver metastases (CLM), neoadjuvant (neo) CTX may increase resectability and improve survival. Due to widespread use of CTX in CLM, recent studies assessed the role of the hepatic margin after CTX, with conflicting results. We evaluated the outcome after resection of CLM in relation to CTX and hepatic resection status.

METHODS

Since 2000, 334 patients with first hepatic resection for isolated CLM were analyzed. Thirty-two percent had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (targeted therapy in 42%). Sixty-eight percent never had CTX before hepatectomy or longer than 6 months before resection. The results were gained by analysis of our prospective database.

RESULTS

Positive hepatic margins occurred in 8% (independent of neoCTx). Patients after neoCTX had higher numbers of CLM (p < 0.01) and a longer duration of surgery (p < 0.03). After hepatectomy, 5-year survival was 45% and correlated strongly with the margin status (47% in R-0 and 21% in R-1; p < 0.001). Survival also correlated with margin status in the subgroups with neoCTX (p < 0.01) or without neoCTx (p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis of the entire group, hepatic margin status (RR 3.2; p < 0.001) and age > 65 years (RR 1.6; p < 0.01) were associated with poorer survival. In the subgroup of patients after neoCTX (n = 106), only the resection margin was an independent predictor of survival (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with isolated colorectal liver metastases undergoing resection, the hepatic margin status was the strongest independent prognostic factor. This effect was also present after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for CLM.

Defining the Chance of Statistical Cure Among Patients with Extrahepatic Biliary Tract Cancer

BACKGROUND

While surgery offers the best curative-intent treatment, many patients with biliary tract malignancies have poor long-term outcomes. We sought to apply a non-mixture cure model to calculate the cure fraction and the time to cure after surgery of patients with peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC) or gallbladder cancer (GBC).

METHODS

Using the Extrahepatic Biliary Malignancy Consortium, 576 patients who underwent curative-intent surgery for gallbladder carcinoma or peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma between 1998 and 2014 at 10 major hepatobiliary institutions were identified and included in the analysis. A non-mixture cure model was adopted to compare mortality after surgery to the mortality expected for the general population matched by sex and age.

RESULTS

The median and 5-year overall survival (OS) were 1.9 years (IQR, 0.9-4.9) and 23.9 % (95 % CI, 19.6-28.6). Among all patients with PHCC or GBC, the probability of being cured after surgery was 14.5 % (95 % CI, 8.7-23.2); the time to cure was 9.7 years and the median survival of uncured patients was 1.8 years. Determinants of cure probabilities included lymph node metastasis and CA 19.9 level (p ≤ 0.05). The cure fraction for patients with a CA 19.9 < 50 U/ml and no lymph nodes metastases were 39.0 % versus only 5.1 % among patients with a CA 19.9 ≥ 50 who also had lymph node metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Examining an "all comer" cohort, <15 % of patients with PHCC or GBC could be considered cured after surgery. Factors such CA 19.9 level and lymph node metastasis independently predicted long-term outcome. Estimating the odds of statistical cure following surgery for biliary tract cancer can assist in decision-making as well as inform discussions around survivorship.

Outcomes of parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and right hepatectomy for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis: A LiverMetSurvey study

BACKGROUND

Occasionally, right hepatectomy, rather than parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy, has been performed for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis. The relative oncologic benefits of parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and right hepatectomy are unclear. This study compared the outcomes of patients with solitary small colorectal liver metastasis in the right liver who underwent parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and those who underwent right hepatectomy.

METHODS

The study population consisted of a multicentric cohort of 21,072 patients operated for colorectal liver metastasis between 2000 and 2015 whose data were collected in the LiverMetSurvey registry. Patients with a pathologically confirmed solitary tumor of less than 30 mm in size in the right liver were included. The short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy were compared to those of patients who underwent right hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Of the 1,720 patients who were eligible for the study, 1,478 (86%) underwent parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and 242 (14%) underwent right hepatectomy. The parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy group was associated with lower rates of major complications (3% vs 10%; P < .001) and 90-day mortality (1% vs 3%; P = .008). Liver recurrence occurred similarly in both groups (20% vs 22%; P = .39). The 5-year recurrence-free survival and overall survival rates were similar in both groups. However, in patients with liver-only recurrence, repeat hepatectomy was more frequently performed in the parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy group than in the right hepatectomy group (67% vs 31%; P < .001), and the overall 5-year survival rate was significantly higher in the parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy group than in the right hepatectomy group (55% vs 23%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy should be considered the standard procedure for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis in the right liver when technically feasible.