Publications (2)3.21 Total impact
-
Article: Two-stage strategy for patients with extensive bilateral colorectal liver metastases.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Two-stage hepatectomy has been proposed for patients with bilateral colorectal liver metastases. The present study assesses the feasibility and outcome of two-stage hepatectomy for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases. From January 1994 to December 2008, 720 patients underwent liver resections at two institutions for colorectal liver metastases. The feasibility and outcomes of two-staged hepatectomies were evaluated. Forty-five patients were eligible for the two-stage approach and both stages were completed in 35 patients (78%). Reasons for failure included disease progression (n= 7), poor performance status (n= 1) and death after the first stage (n= 2). Patients who completed both stages had significantly fewer lesions than patients who failed to complete the second stage (5 vs. 8; P= 0.02). No differences between the two groups were observed with regard to lesion size, receipt of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or presence of extrahepatic disease. Post-operative morbidity (24% vs. 26%; P= 0.9) and mortality (4% vs. 5%; P= 0.8) was similar between the first and second stages. Median overall survival was 16 months. Three-year survival was significantly worse for patients failing to complete both stages (18%) compared with patients completing both stages (58%) (P < 0.001). Similar survival rates were observed between patients who completed two-stage vs. patients treated with a planned single-stage hepatectomy (58% vs. 53%; P= 0.34). The two-stage strategy for colorectal liver metastases can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality. The second stage will not be feasible in 20-25% of patients. Patients who are able to complete the two-stage approach, however, may have long-term survival comparable to patients treated with a planned single-stage hepatectomy.HPB 05/2010; 12(4):262-9. · 1.60 Impact Factor -
Article: Comparative performances of staging systems for early hepatocellular carcinoma.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Several staging systems for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been proposed, but studies of their prognostic accuracy have yielded conflicting conclusions. Stratifying patients with early HCC is of particular interest because these patients may derive the greatest benefit from intervention, yet no studies have evaluated the comparative performances of staging systems in patients with early HCC. A retrospective cohort study was performed using data on 379 patients who underwent liver resection or liver transplantation for HCC at six major hepatobiliary centres in the USA and Europe. The staging systems evaluated were: the Okuda staging system, the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) staging system, the Cancer of the Liver Italian Programme (CLIP) score, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, the Japanese Integrated Staging (JIS) score and the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer (AJCC/UICC) staging system, 6th edition. A recently proposed early HCC prognostic score was also evaluated. The discriminative abilities of the staging systems were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models and the bootstrap-corrected concordance index (c). Overall survival of the cohort was 74% at 3 years and 52% at 5 years, with a median survival of 62 months. Most systems demonstrated poor discriminatory ability (P > 0.05 on Cox proportional hazards analysis, c approximately 0.5). However, the AJCC/UICC system clearly stratified patients (P < 0.001, c = 0.59), albeit only into two groups. The early HCC prognostic score also clearly stratified patients (P < 0.001, c = 0.60) and identified three distinct prognostic groups. The early HCC prognostic score is superior to the AJCC/UICC staging system (6th edition) for predicting the survival of patients with early HCC after liver resection or liver transplantation. Other major HCC staging systems perform poorly in patients with early HCC.HPB 01/2009; 11(5):382-90. · 1.60 Impact Factor
