Article

Anatomical Versus Nonanatomical Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Is There a Difference in Surgical and Oncological Outcome?

Division of Transplantation and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Erasmus University MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
World Journal of Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.35). 03/2011; 35(3):656-61. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-010-0890-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The increased use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and minimally invasive therapies for recurrence in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM) makes a surgical strategy to save as much liver volume as possible pivotal. In this study, we determined the difference in morbidity and mortality and the patterns of recurrence and survival in patients with CLM treated with anatomical (AR) and nonanatomical liver resection (NAR).
From January 2000 to June 2008, patients with CLM who underwent a resection were included and divided into two groups: patients who underwent AR, and patients who underwent NAR. Patients who underwent simultaneous radiofrequency ablation in addition to surgery and patients with extrahepatic metastasis were excluded. Patient, tumor, and treatment data, as well as disease-free and overall survival (OS) were compared.
Eighty-eight patients (44%) received AR and 113 patients (56%) underwent NAR. NAR were performed for significant smaller metastases (3 vs. 4 cm, P < 0.001). The Clinical Risk Score did not differ between the groups. After NAR, patients received significantly less blood transfusions (20% vs. 36%, P = 0.012), and the hospital stay was significantly shorter (7 vs. 8 days, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in complications, positive resection margins, or recurrence. For the total study group, estimated 5-year disease-free and OS was 31 and 44%, respectively, with no difference between the groups.
Our study resulted in no significant difference in morbidity, mortality, recurrence rate, or survival according to resection type. NAR can be used as a save procedure to preserve liver parenchyma.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Cornelis Verhoef, Aug 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
194 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite major advances in therapies for liver metastases, colorectal cancer remains one of the commonest causes of cancer-related deaths in the UK. The international literature on the management of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) was reviewed. Due to a combination of highly active systemic agents and low perioperative mortality achieved by high-volume centres, a growing number of patients are being offered liver resection with curative intent. Patients with bilobar and/or extrahepatic disease who would previously have received palliative treatment only, are undergoing major surgery with good results. This review focuses on preoperative evaluation, surgical planning and the role of adjuvant therapies in the management of patients with CLM. Can ablative therapies match the outcomes of surgical resection? How can even more patients be rendered resectable? The use of other therapies, such as radiofrequency ablation and selective internal radiation therapy. New chemotherapy regimens for neo-adjuvant therapy and the development of new modalities of liver tumour ablation.
    British Medical Bulletin 08/2011; 99(1):107-24. DOI:10.1093/bmb/ldr034 · 3.95 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hepatic resection of colorectal liver metastases is the only curative treatment option. As clinical and experimental data indicate that the extent of liver resection correlates with growth of residual metastases, the present study analyzes the potential benefit of a parenchyma-preserving liver surgery approach. Data from a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal metastases were reviewed. Evaluation of outcome was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Correlations were calculated between clinical-pathological variables. One hundred sixty-three patients underwent 198 liver resections for colorectal metastases: 26 major hepatectomies, 65 minor anatomical resections, 78 non-anatomical resections, as well as 29 combinations of minor anatomical and non-anatomical procedures. Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 93%, 62%, and 40%, respectively. Patients with repeated liver resections had a 5-year survival of 27%. Interestingly, large dissection areas were associated with a significant reduction of the 5-year survival rate (33%). Five-year survival after major hepatectomy was not significantly reduced. For colorectal liver metastases, minor resections offer a prolonged survival compared to major hepatectomies. As patients with stage IV colorectal disease are candidates for repeat resections, preservation of hepatic parenchyma is of increasing importance in the setting of multi-modal and repeated therapy approaches.
    Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery 11/2011; 397(3):383-95. DOI:10.1007/s00423-011-0872-x · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study was to compare anatomical resection (AR) versus nonanatomical resection (NAR) for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) with respect to perioperative and oncological outcomes. Literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes for both AR and NAR for CLM. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model. Seven nonrandomized controlled studies matched the selection criteria and reported on 1,662 subjects, of whom 989 underwent AR, and 673 underwent NAR for CLM. Compared with the perioperative results, NAR reduced the operation time (WMD, 0.39; 95% CI, 1.97-79.17) and blood transfusion requirement (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.87-4.74), whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar between the two groups. With respect to oncologic outcomes, there was no significant difference in surgical margins, overall survival and disease-free survival between the two groups. NAR is a safe procedure for CLM and does not compromise oncological outcomes. However, the findings have to be carefully interpreted due to the lower level of evidence.
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease 01/2012; 27(7):939-46. DOI:10.1007/s00384-011-1403-5 · 2.42 Impact Factor
Show more