Two-Stage Resection for Bilobar Colorectal Liver Metastases: R0 Resection Is the Key

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.
Annals of Surgical Oncology (Impact Factor: 3.93). 02/2011; 18(7):1939-46. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1533-y
Source: PubMed


Two-stage liver resection (2-SLR) is used clinically in conjunction with portal vein embolization for bilobar disease to increase the number of patients suitable for liver resection. The long-term outcomes after 2-SLR for multiple bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CLM) was examined.
Patients who sought care between November 2003 and April 2006 with multiple CLM considered suitable for 2-SLR were prospectively followed. Clinicopathological data were collected. Surgical outcomes were defined as complete clearance of tumor (R0/R1/R2), postoperative morbidity (within 3 months), 30 day mortality, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).
A total of 131 patients with CLM underwent liver resection during the study period, 38 of whom were planned for a 2-SLR for multiple bilobar disease. Only 33 (87%) completed the 2-SLR with a curative intent. Five patients did not undergo stage II resection because of disease progression. The postoperative morbidity was 11 and 33% after stage I and stage II liver resections, respectively. Five patients (13%) encountered postoperative complications specific to liver surgery. The median interval from stage II resection to disease recurrence in the R0 group was 18 months versus 3 months in the R1/R2 group (P < 0.001). R0 resection with curative intent versus R1/R2 noncurative resection has a significantly longer period of DFS (P < 0.001) and OS (P = 0.04).
The 2-SLR combined with portal vein embolization is an effective and safe method for resecting previously unresectable multiple bilobar CLM. However, a positive resection margin leads to poor DFS and OS.

23 Reads
  • Source
    • "Our study demonstrated that positive margins were related to a more dismal prognosis. This is consistent with the majority of other comparable reports [1,9,24-26]. Even with a consensus on obtaining free margins after liver resections there are still conflicting results about the sufficient magnitude of the RMs and its impact on recurrence and survival. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several reports have presented conflicting results regarding the association between resection margins (RMs) and outcome after surgery for colorectal liver metastases (CLM), especially in the era of modern chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of RMs on overall survival (OS), time to recurrence (TTR) and local recurrence (LR) status, particularly for patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy. A combined retrospective (1998 to 2008) and prospective (2008 to 2010) cohort study of consecutive patients with CLM without extrahepatic disease treated with primary resection at a medium volume centre. A total of 253 patients with known R status and 242 patients with defined margin width were included in the study. Patients were stratified according to margin width; A: R1, <1 mm (n = 48, 19%), B: 1 to 4 mm (n = 77), C: 5 to 9 mm (n = 46) and D: >=10 mm (n = 71). Median time to recurrence was 12.8 months, and after five years 21.5% had no recurrence. LR (inclusive combined recurrence in other hepatic sites or extrahepatic) occurred in 40 (16.5%) cases, most frequently seen with RMs below 5 mm. Five-year OS was 42.5% in R0 and 16.1% in R1 resections (P = 0.011). Patients were also stratified according to preoperative chemotherapy (n = 88), and the difference in five-year OS between R0 (45.1%) and R1 (14.7%) was maintained (P = 0.037). By multiple Cox regression analysis R1 resections tended to an adverse outcome (P = 0.067), also when adjusting for preoperative chemotherapy (P = 0.081). R1 resections for colorectal liver metastases predict adverse outcome. RMs below 5 mm increased the risk for LR and shortened the time to recurrence. Preoperative chemotherapy did not alter an adverse outcome in R1 vs. R0 patients.
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology 04/2014; 12(1):127. DOI:10.1186/1477-7819-12-127 · 1.41 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the feasibility and outcomes of two-stage hepatectomy in patients with or without accompanying digestive surgery. Methods: We analyzed prospectively data from 56 patients with colorectal liver metastases undergoing two-stage hepatectomy between 1995 and 2009. Patients undergoing associated digestive resection (group I, n = 32) were compared with patients without associated digestive surgery (group II, n = 17). Results: The feasibility rate was 87.5% (49 patients). Neither the type and extent of hepatectomy nor the type of chemotherapy administered differed between the two groups. The median interval between hepatectomies was 1.79 and 2.07 months for groups I and II, respectively (not significant). One patient (group I) died of liver failure after the second hepatectomy. Postoperative morbidity rates were comparable: 37.5% (group I) vs. 35.5% (group II) after the first hepatectomy and 46.9% (group I) vs. 52.9% (group II) after the second hepatectomy. The median hospital stay after the first hepatectomy was longer in group I (13.5 days) than in group II (10 days) (P < 0.01). Median follow-up was 54 months. The median overall survival (OS) was 45.8 months, and 3- and 5-year OS were 58 and 31%, respectively. Median OS was longer for group II (58 months) than for group I (34 months) (P = 0.048). Conclusions: Digestive tract resection associated with two-stage hepatectomy does not increase postoperative mortality or morbidity nor does it lead to delay in chemotherapy or a reduction in cycles administered. The need for digestive tract surgery should not affect the surgical management of two-stage hepatectomy patients.
    Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery 09/2012; 397(8). DOI:10.1007/s00423-012-1002-0 · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To evaluate the significance of the hypertrophy concept in patients requiring extended liver resections for colorectal metastasis in the time of computer assisted surgery. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patient collective undergoing major liver surgery. 2D CT, 3D CAS with Fraunhofer MeVis Sofware. Portal vein embolisation (PVE) with the Amplazer Plug, portal vein ligation (PVL) as 1. Stage operative procedure. Results: 2D CT data identified 29 patients out of 319 (2002-2009) to be at risk for liver failure after resection. After 3D CAS analysis and virtual operation planning, only 7/29 were at true risk and were submitted to portal vein occlusion (PVO). Another 5 patients were submitted to the hypertrophy concept for intraoperative finding of insufficient parenchyma quality. In total, 12 patients underwent PVO (6 PVE/6 PVL). 9/12 patients went to stage 2 and were successfully operated. There was no difference in future remnant liver volume (FRLV) gain or waiting time to step 2 between the groups, though survival was better in the PVE group. Conclusion: PVO is an effective approach if the patient's future remnant liver (FRL) is too small on 2D CT volumetry. 3D CAS has great impact on the analysis of FRL capacity and in augmenting resectability - in our experience only patients with insufficient FRLV on the virtual resection plan have to take the risk of PVO to maintain the chance of liver resection.
    Advances in Medical Sciences 01/2013; 57(2):8-15. DOI:10.2478/v10039-012-0057-z · 1.11 Impact Factor
Show more