Survival outcome of pulmonary metastasectomy among the patients with colorectal cancers

CT-Guided Percutaneous Cryoablation for Lung Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer: A Case Series

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of computed tomography (CT) guided percutaneous cryoablation (CA) for the management of lung metastases in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed on 38 mCRC patients with lung metastases, who underwent CT-guided percutaneous CA at our center from May 1, 2020 to November 1, 2021. The technical success rate, 1-year local control (LC) rate, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and treatment-related complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The CA procedure was successfully performed in all patients, with a technical success rate of 100%. The 1-year LC rate was 94.7% (36/38), while 16 patients experienced new distant lung metastases during the follow-up period. The median RFS was 20 months (95% CI: 13.0-27.0). The median RFS of patients with and without extrapulmonary metastasis was 15 and 23 months, respectively. Complications were reported in 18 (47.4%) patients following the CA procedure. Pneumothorax was discovered in 15 (39.5%) patients, and five of these patients (13.2%) required chest tube intubation. Two patients (5.3%) presented with hemoptysis during the CA procedure. One patient developed subcutaneous emphysema as detected in the post-procedure follow-up imaging. All patients tolerated the peri-procedural pain well under local anesthesia, and the mean visual analog scale (VAS) score was 2.8.

CONCLUSION

Lung CA is a safe and well-tolerated treatment with a satisfactory local control rate for patients with lung metastases derived from mCRC.

Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) randomised controlled trial: a systematic review of published responses

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the nature and tone of the published responses to the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Published articles that cited the PulMiCC trial were identified from Clarivate Web of Science (©. Duplicates and self-citations were excluded and relevant text extracted. Four independent researchers rated the extracts independently using agreed scales for the representativeness of trial data and the textual tone. The ratings were aggregated and summarized. Two PulMiCC authors carried out a thematic analysis of the extracts.

RESULTS

Sixty-four citations were identified and relevant text was extracted and examined. The consensus rating for data inclusion was a median of 0.25 out of 6 (range 0 to 5.25, IQR 0-1.5) and for textual tone the median rating was 1.87 out of 6 (range 0 to 5.75, IQR 1-3.5). The majority of citations did not provide adequate representation of the PulMiCC data and the overall the textual tone was dismissive. Although some were supportive, many discounted the findings because the trial closed early and was underpowered to show non-inferiority. Two misinterpreted the authors' conclusions but there was acceptance that five-year survival was much higher than widely assumed.

CONCLUSIONS

Published comments reveal a widespread reluctance to consider seriously the results of a carefully conducted randomized trial. This may be because the results challenge accepted practice because of 'motivated reasoning'. But there is a widespread misunderstanding of the fact that though PulMiCC with 93 patients was underpowered to test non-inferiority, it still provides reliable evidence to undermine the widespread belief in a major survival benefit from metastasectomy.