Volume 210, Number 2
In General Surgery
Resection of Hepatic Metastases
from Colorectal Cancer
GLENN STEELE, JR., M.D., and T.S. RAVIKUMAR, M.D.
During the past decade the results of slightly fewer than 1000
resections of liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma have
been analyzed, retrospectively reanalyzed, and reviewed. The
following are confirmed conclusions: major liver resection can
be performed safely (less than a 5% operative mortality rate);
20% to 25% ofthese patients are cured; no other regional therapy
options have any curative potential. The following caveats are
also obvious: most patients who are operated on are not cured;
although predictors have been proposed to select patients most
likely to benefit from surgery, none is discriminating in and of
itself; most therapy questions in this group of patients have not
been addressed in any formal way, surgery for isolated regionally
recurrent colon and rectum carcinoma remains an important
stopgap only until effective systemic therapy is discovered. This
review of our own and other single and multi-institutional pro-
spective and retrospective data will be framed by the following
questions. (1) Does resection of liver metastases cure patients
or simply select those who would have survived in the long-term
without any therapy? (2) In the absence ofany formalized, prop-
erly designed trial, how can one judge the benefit of resection?
(3) Why do metastases recur only in the liver? (4) What new
therapies should focus on the predominant secondary failure sites
in the majority of patients who do not benefit from hepatic me-
From the Department of Surgery, New England Deaconess
Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Selection of Patients
Before examining the outcome of resection of hepatic
metastasis from colorectal carcinoma, one must determine
the degree of selection for patients with isolated, poten-
tially resectable liver metastases. Pestana et al.' in an au-
topsy series, reported that the liver was involved in 70%
ofall patients who died from disseminated colon and rec-
tum carcinoma. Because 147,000 new cases ofcolon and
rectum carcinoma will be diagnosed this year and roughly
50% ofpatients will experience recurrence within 5 years,
liver metastasis remains a prevalent mode offailure. Fur-
thermore, numerous studies220 of the natural history of
colorectal carcinoma, including our own, have shown that
liver metastasis is the primary determinant ofpatient sur-
vival. However, this large number of patients with the
liver as one site of disseminated disease is irrelevant to
the surgeon. For effective regional therapy, there must be
no extraregional disease. As shown in recent prospective
adjuvant treatment trials,21'22 the liver is the first or only
site offailure in fewer than 20% ofpatientswho experience
recurrence after primary colon and rectum cancer resec-
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Glenn Steele, Jr., M.D., De-
partment ofSurgery, New England Deaconess Hospital, Harvard Medical
School, 110 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02215.
Accepted for publication: February 8, 1989.
STEELE AND RAVIKUMAR
tion. Some of these patients who present initially with
regional disease (for instance, those with poorly differ-
entiated adenocarcinoma) will show rapid proliferation
of disease outside the liver. In addition, one third of the
patients who have liver only or liver-predominant colo-
rectal cancer metastases staged by any of the presently
available noninvasive diagnostic tests will be found at
surgery to have extrahepatic disease or metastases in the
liver not amenable to surgical resection.23 New staging
techniques, such as intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS),24
will exclude even more patients found to have additional
deep liver metastases as small as 2 mm to 4 mm in di-
ameter. As the surgeon becomes stricter in excluding pa-
tients with multiple liver lesions or with disease outside
the liver, resection results will seem better. Furthermore,
as the surgeon selects patients with more indolent disease
(i.e., metastases isolated to the liver or lung that grow
slowly and do not spread to other organs), results from
resection will also seem better. The varying selection bias
may explain differences in outcome among the many sin-
gle institution hepatic metastasis resection series. Com-
posite series will offer a more realistic survival estimate
but are impossible to analyze because individual surgeon's
criteria for patient exclusion is not possible to extract.
Adson et al.'6 and Fortner25 have attempted to estimate
the maximum potential therapeutic benefit ifhepatic me-
tastasis resection were applied to all appropriately selected
patients with colon and rectum carcinoma recurrence.
We have modified their estimates as follows. If one as-
sumes that 50% ofthe 147,000 patients who will be newly
diagnosed with colon and rectum carcinoma this year will
fail within 5 years, approximately 70,000 patients will be
at risk for liver metastases as part of their recurrence.
Eventually, 60% to 70% of these patients will have the
liver as one involved organ. However, the liver will be the
first or predominant site of failure in only 20% of these
patients. Thus at most, 9000 patients could be considered
for liver resection. However, if one assumes some prob-
ability ofcomorbid disease that would exclude any major
operation, and if one assumes that some patients would
rapidly show progressive extrahepatic disease, then per-
haps another 1000 to 1500 patients would be excluded
from surgery. At the time of surgery, one third of these
7500 patients would be ineligible for resection.226 Thus,
approximately 5000 patients would be potential candi-
dates for resection each year. Ifone accepts the cumulative
operative mortality rate of 5%, 250 patients would not
survive the perioperative period. With the theoretical 4750
patients operated on and alive after their operations, and
a 20% to 25% 5- and 10-year disease-free survival, it is
apparent that using the most optimistic estimates no more
than 1000 patients per year could be cured by surgical
resection. This puts the clinical discussion into proper
The Natural History of Hepatic Metastases
At the time of surgery, no surgeon who finds that his
or her patient has a resectable liver metastasis will ran-
domize that patient to resection versus sham laparotomy.
Analysis ofpatient benefit from hepatic metastasis resec-
tion, therefore, must include comparison to outcome in
natural history series that include comparably selected
With the single exception of Adson et al.,27'28 all sur-
geons who report their hepatic metastasis resection series
have stated that their only goal was to cure the patient.
Although Adson's palliative approach for some ofhis pa-
tients and his attempt to define a postoperative quality-
of-life index is interesting, most patientswho present with
pain and deterioration of liver function chemistries or
synthetic function have, in general, far-advanced liver tu-
mors that should not be considered for major surgical
resection. In our own series,23'29 and in all single institu-
tional series with the exception of Dr. Adson's, patients
are operated on with curative intent. By and large these
patients are asymptomatic or only mildly symptomatic
at the time their liver metastases are diagnosed and when
they come to surgery. In addition, most patients have no
comorbid disease. Such selected surgical patients, then,
cannot be compared to the general population ofpatients
with synchronous or metachronous liver metastases from
colon and rectum cancer who have been predicted to have
a mean survival rate ofonly 6 to 9 months after diagnosis.'
Among the natural history studies listed in Table 1,
several have characterized survival among selected pa-
tients similar to those included in hepatic resection series.
These include 1970 and 1983 reports by Cady et al.,6"14
the Goslin et al.2 study published in 1982, and the recent
Finley and McArdle study20 ofoccult hepatic metastases.
The patients with limited liver involvement described in
these natural history series are undoubtedly more anal-
ogous to those on whom we operate. The benefits of our
surgical therapy should be evaluated by a comparison with
these historical nontreated controls.
Our investigation of 125 patients who were referred to
a tertiary cancer center during an era when hepatic me-
tastasis resection was not in vogue is representative ofthe
other natural history series in which most patients were
asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. The following
conclusions were evident. First, the simplest way to es-
tablish prognosis was to ask the patient how he or she felt.
In the majority of our patients there was no deficit in
work or life style, so called Eastern Cooperative Oncology
Group (ECOG) functional status 0. As can be seen in
Figure 1A, the patients with no dysfunction had a median
survival of 18 months, regardless of the extent of their
liver disease. Second, patients who were found to have
more disease died more quickly than those with less dis-
Ann.Surg* August 1989
RESECTION OF HEPATIC METASTASES
TABLE 1. Liver Metastasesfrom Colorectal Cancer: Natural History Series
Pestana C, Reitemeier RJ, Moertel CG, et al.
Jaffe BM, Donegan WL, Watson F, et al.
Bengmark S, Hafstrom L
Oxley FM, Ellis H
Cady B, Monson DO, Swinton NW
Abrams MS, Lerner HJ
Neilson J, Balslev I, Jensen H-E
Baden H, Anderson B
Wood CB, Gillis CR, Blumgart LH
Welch JP, Donaldson GA
Bengsson G, Carlsson G, Hafstrom L, et al.
Goslin R, Steele G Jr, Zamcheck N, et al.
Levine AN, Donegan WL, Irwin M
Lahr CJ, Scong S-J, Cloud G, et al.
Wagner JS, Adson MA, Van Heerden JA, et al.
Wood CB. In: Van de Velde CJH, Sugarbaker P (eds.)
Finan PJ, Marshall RJ, Cooper EH, et al.
Fujimoto S, Miyazaki M, Kitsukawa Y, et al.
Finlay IG, McArdle CS
Am J Surg 1964; 108:826-9
Surg Gynecol Obstet 1968; 127:1-11
Cancer 1969; 23:198-202
Br J Surg 1969; 56:149-152
Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970; 131:697-700
Dis Colon Rectum 1971; 14:431-4
Acta Chir Scand 1971; 137:463-5
Scand J Gastroenterol 1975; 10:221-3
Clin Oncol 1976; 2:285-8
Am J Surg 1978; 135:505-11
Am J Surg 1981; 141:586-9
Dis Colon Rectum 1982; 25:749-54
JAMA 1982; 247:2809-10
Semin Oncol 1983; 10:127-33
J Clin Oncol 1983; 1:720-6
Ann Surg 1984; 199:502-7
Dordrecht: MartinusNijhoff 1984; 47-54
Br J Surg 1985; 72:373-7
Dis Colon Rectum 1985; 28:588-91
Br J Surg 1986; 73:732-5
ease in their liver (Fig. IB). Individuals who were asymp-
tomatic at presentation and who had fewer than three
metastases had a median survival of24 months, which is
considerably longer than the 4- to 6-month survival pe-
riods reported in unselected populations ofpatients with
synchronous or metachronous liver metastases. This and
other natural history series have shown that a select group
ofpatients with good biology liver metastases from colon
and rectum carcinoma will live a long time. However,
death is the uniform outcome, and in ourexperience death
is always related to the inexorable tumor growth in the
Finley and McArdle20 have proposed that perhaps as
many as 20% to 25% of patients who have no known
metastatic disease at the time oftheir primary colon and
rectum cancer surgery may have occult liver metastases.
These investigators have attempted to define the doubling
time of liver tumors in patients with purported occult
disease compared to the doubling time ofliver tumors in
patients who have known metastases at the time of pri-
mary tumor resection.30 The biologic approach is good,
even if impractical. Theoretically, the surgeon could do
with liver metastases what has already been done with
pulmonary metastases from sarcoma, i.e., calculate the
# of Liver Nodules
FiGS. IA and B. (A) Survival rate and performance status at presentation.
(B) Survival rate and number of liver nodules.2
Vol. 210- No. 2
STEELE AND RAVIKUMAR
doubling time of a given liver metastasis to estimate the
proliferative thrust or biology ofthe disease before making
the decision to resect. Unfortunately, however, the pre-
cision ofestimating doubling time even ofknown metas-
tases is hampered by inadequate resolution capacity of
most noninvasive diagnostic liver imaging techniques.
Doubling time estimation is further limited by imprecise
estimates ofwhen the actual metastasis occurred. Varia-
tions in tumor growth, dependence on tumor volume (so-
called Gompertzian growth kinetics), variations in tumor
spread to other organs not related to tumor volume, and
variations in multifactorial host antitumor response all
make the biology of a given tumor impossible to define.
Thus, the surgeon is left with clinical criteria for selecting
his or her patients and will most often operate on the
asymptomatic patient with less liver tumor who is likely
to have a reasonable outcome.
Two aspects in this comparison between the natural
history and resected groups will be particularly important:
(1) patterns offailure or death with and without successful
surgical resection, and (2) examination ofplateaus in sur-
vival curves among the "best biology patients" selected
in nonsurgical "historical control" and resection series.
Changes in patterns of failure after surgery imply that
surgery is, in fact, accomplishing something. A plateau in
the survival curve indicates that some patients are cured.
Presently available preoperative staging techniques lead
the surgeon to explore 30% or more patients who are
found not to be amenable to hepatic metastasis resec-
tion.2326 Contraindications include unsuspected extra-
hepatic disease (usually periportal
nodes) or additional disease in the liver that makes resec-
tion technically or biologically impractical.
In our own experience, ultrasound is the most effective
way to stage the liver. A caveat is the qualitative aspect
ofultrasound interpretation. Even with the best and most
interested ultrasonographer, however, resolution capacity
is limited to liver lesions equal to or greater than
diameter. CT scan, particularly with hepatocyte or Kupffer
cell dyes, may improve resolution capacity, but presently
CT is no better than ultrasound and may even be less
useful when attempting to define lesions in the left lateral
hepatic segment. Particular advantages of magnetic res-
onance imaging in defining liver lesions and extrahepatic
disease are still being investigated.3'
In a recent comparison ofpreoperative imaging studies
with intraoperative staging we added intraoperative ul-
trasonography (IOUS) to our repertoire.32 We prospec-
tively evaluated 117 patients; 167 lesions were detected
by IOUS. Of these, 61%, 76%, and 52% were detected by
preoperative CT scan, ultrasound, and angiography, re-
1 cm in
spectively. IOUS was superior to intraoperative visual ex-
amination or bimanual palpation of the liver, as well.
Parenchymal lesions as small as 2 mm to 4 mm could be
detected in the depths of the right and the left lobes. We
now routinely apply the IOUS transducer over the anterior
and posterior surfaces ofright and left lobes after the liver
is freed from its diaphragmatic attachments before any
commitment to resection. Use ofIOUS to stage the liver
at the time of primary colon or rectum cancer resection
might provide valuable natural history data, particularly
regarding occult liver metastases. Because, however, there
is no direct therapeutic benefit to the patient from this
added information, we reserve IOUS at the time of pri-
mary colon and rectum carcinoma resection for experi-
Additional routine studies performed before liver re-
section include lung tomograms or pulmonary CT scans.
In our early series,23 plain roentgenograms of the chest
missed occult pulmonary metastases found by one ofthe
other two imaging modalities in 10% to 15% of patients.
Our need to more effectively exclude occult pulmonary
disease was evident when analyzing patterns of failure.
Hepatic arteriography is performned before operation
by our group and by most surgeons who perform hepatic
resection. This is not done to find additional liver lesions,
although the combination of arteriography and CT scan
may be helpful to do so. It is simply to provide a road
map of the varied celiac arterial plexus. Particularly in
cases in which the major right hepatic arterial inflow orig-
inates from the superior mesenteric artery or when the
left hepatic artery originates from the left gastric, it is
helpful to know the anatomy before dissection ofthe porta
Finally, all patients are colonoscoped before surgery to
rule out the existence of polyps, suture line recurrence,
or metachronous cancers.
The major individual institutional series analyzing re-
sults from resecting colorectal cancer hepatic metastases
are listed in Table 2. Collected series, beginning with Fos-
ter's seminal work in 1977,33 are listed in Table 3. A com-
posite ofpatient numbers and factors predicting outcome
are summarized in Table 4.
All hepatic metastasis resection series, with the excep-
tion ofa single unpublished prospective registry from the
Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group, are retrospective.
All, including the Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group
prospective study, have no concomitant nonsurgically
treated controls. It is important to distinguish the collected
retrospective analyses, such as the Hughes et al.3436 he-
patic metastasis registry reports from the single institution
analyses.37175 Although Hughes and coworkers have ac-
Ann. Surg.-August 1989
RESECTION OF HEPATIC METASTASES
TABLE 2. Single Institutional Series ofColorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis Resection
Pack GT, Brasfield RD
Attiyeh F, Wanebo HJ, Sterns MW
Wanebo HJ, Semoglov C, Attiyeh F, et al.
Fortner JG, Silva JS, Golbey RB, et al.
Butler J, Attiyeh F, Daly JM
Flanagan L, Foster JH
Foster JH, Lundy J
Wilson SM, Adson MA
Adson MA, Van Heerden JA
Adson MA, Van Heerden JA, et al.
Logan SE, Meier SJ, Ramming KP, et al.
Thompson HH, Tompkins RK, Longmire WP
Taylor B, Langer B, Falk RE, et al.
Coburn CS, Makowka L, Langer B, et al.
Steele G Jr, Osteen RT, Wilson R, et al.
Cady B, McDermott WV
Cady B, Saenz N, Steele G Jr, et al.
Ekberg H, Tranberg K-G, Andersson R, et al.
Ekberg H, Tranberg K-G, Andersson R, et al.
Woodington GF, Waugh JM
Boey J, Choi TK, Wong T, et al.
Blumgart LH, Allison DJ
Morrow CE, Grage TB, Sutherland DER, et al.
Rajpal S, Dasmahapatra KS, Ledesma EJ, et al.
Iwatsuki S, Byers WS Jr, Starzl TE
Kortz WJ, Meyers WC, Hanks JB, et al.
Tomas de la Vega JE, Donahue JE, Doolas A, et al.
August DA, Sugarbaker PH, Ottow RT, et al.
Coppa GF, Eng K, Ranson JHC, et al.
Fegiz G, Bezzi M, DeAngelis R, et al.
Petrelli NJ, Nambisan RN, Herrera L
Gennari L, Doci R, Bozzetti F, et al.
Bozzetti F, Bignami P, Morabito A, et al.
Nordlinger B, Quilichini MA, Parc R, et al.
Sesto ME, Vogt DP, Hermann RE
Brown DA, Pommier RF, Woltering EA, et al.
Stephenson ICR, Steinberg SM, Hughes KS, et al.
Am J Surg 1955; 90:704-716
Dis Colon Rectum 1978; 21:160-2
Am J Surg 1978; 135:81-5
Ann Surg 1984; 198:306-16
Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986; 162:109-113
Am J Surg 1988; 155:378-82
Am J Surg 1967; 113:551-7
Cancer 1970; 26:493-502
Am J Surg 1978; 135:389-394
Curr Probl Surg 1981; 18:161-202
Arch Surg 1976; 111:330-4
Ann Surg 1980; 191:576-83
Arch Surg 1984; 119:647-51
World J Surg 1987; 11:511-20
Arch Surg 1982; 117:25-8
Ann Surg 1983; 197:375-88
Can J Surg 1983; 26:215-7
Surg Gynecol Obstet 1987; 165:239-46
Am J Surg 1984; 147:554-9
Ann Surg 1985; 201:204-9
Am J Surg In press
Br J Surg 1986; 73:727-31
World J Surg 1987; 11:541-7
Surg Clin North Am 1962; 42:507-18
Am J Surg 1963; 105:24-9
SugGynecolObstet 1981; 153:844-8
Worl J Surg 1982; 6:320-45
Surgery 1982; 92:610-4
Surg Gynecol Obstet 1982; 155:813-6
Ann Surg 1983; 197:247-53
Ann Surg 1984; 199:182-6
Surg Gynecol Obstet 1984; 158:46-8
Surg Gynecol Obstet 1984; 159:223-8
Ann Surg 1985; 201:210-8
Ann Surg 1985; 202:203-8
Ital J Surg Sci 1985; 15:259-65
Am J Surg 1985; 149:205-9
Ann Surg 1986; 203:49-54
Ann Surg 1987; 205:264-70
Ann Surg 1987; 205:256-63
Surgery 1987; 102:846-51
Arch Surg 1988; 123:1063-6
Ann Surg 1988; 203:679-87
cumulated significant data that provide a less-selected
picture ofoutcome, few ofthe data are new. Most ofthe
patients have also been included in individual series.
Composite data is particularly difficult to analyze because
specific selection criteria from individual participating
surgeons are no longer extractable from the larger data
pool. For this discussion we have focused on outcome
and predictors of outcome derived from the individual
series and we refer to the Hughes et al. collection only
where there are marked differences.
Since the watershed hepatic metastasis resection studies
ofFoster33'42-45 and Adson et al.,46-4' and the reemphasis
of liver anatomy in the technical prerequisites of liver
resection by Starzl and his colleagues7677in the mid to
later 1970s, the number ofseries reporting liver resection
has increased dramatically and may soon equal the num-
Vol. 210 * No. 2
Ann. Surg. * August 1989
TABLE 3. Collected Series ofColorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis Resection
Foster JH, Berman MM
Hughes KS, Simon R, Songhorabodi S, et al.
Hughes KS, Rosenstein RB, Songhorabodi S, et al.
Hughes KS, Simon R, Songhoragodi S, et al.
Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group Protocol GI 6584
Major Probl Clin Surg 1977; 22:1-342
Surgery 1986; 100:278-84
Dis Colon Rectum 1988; 31:1-4
Surgery 1987; 103:278-88
ber ofpatients appropriate to undergo liver resection. All
ofthe series concur on the following points. Liver resection
can be done safely. When patients with comorbid disease
are excluded from the potential stress of 6-to-14 unit op-
erative transfusion need and when the surgeon is adept
at liver surgery, the postoperative mortality rate is less
than 5%.27,62 Reported postoperative mortality rates
range from 3% to 20%.
lished in 1984,23 expanded in 1985,29 and updated in
1989,29 the operative mortality rate has been stable at 3%.
Although nowhere published, my guess is that most deaths
may be blamed on technical errors as a proximate cause,
but the more likely substantial error is in choosing to op-
erate on a patient whose liver metastasis is beyond curative
resection. As usual, judgment and technical expertise are
equally important in maintaining acceptable surgical
Several authors have implied that to dwell on low post-
operative mortality rates is to ignore significant incidences
of morbidity after hepatic resection. This is wrong. Inci-
dence of morbidity is quite low and is best reflected by a
median postoperative hospital stay of 10 and 12 days in
our first and in our more recent series, respectively. The
most frequent postoperative complication is biloma. This
can occur after a right hepatic lobectomy or an extended
right hepatic lobectomy when there is a good deal of un-
filled space under the right hemidiaphragm. During the
last several years this complication, which quite often only
becomes apparent with temperature elevations after the
patient is discharged, has been handled with percutaneous
placement of a pigtail catheter using either CT or ultra-
sound guidance. The patient is either not admitted to the
hospital at all or, at most, for a one-day stay.
Survival rate is depicted most often on Kaplan-Meier
actuarial plots. One must be aware ofdegeneration from
predicted to actual survival curves. Several of the series,
including our own, have followed patients long enough
to have actual survival data after hepatic metastasis re-
section. Some of the patients who were followed for the
longest are those operated on by Adson and colleagues.
Five- and 10-year survival data have shown a plateau after
hepatic metastasis resection. In a recent review ofhis ex-
perience in the World Journal ofSurgery,27 Adson has
shown that his long-term survivors have the same risk of
death as their age-matched noncancer population cohort.
Our studies show that 20% to 25% of patients will be
free of disease 5 years after hepatic metastasis resection,
and that the flat part of the survival curve begins at ap-
proximately 5 years with good expectation that those who
are cured are, in fact, permanently cured. The timing of
In our own series, first pub-
TABLE 4. Factors Predicting Long-term Survival After Resection
10 °- 20
*The Adson series contains patients also in the Wagner series.
t Hughes et al. contains many cases from the other series.
- = no.
STEELE AND RAVIKUMAR
RESECTION OF HEPATIC METASTASES
secondary recurrence after hepatic metastasis resection is
uniformly reported. Recurrences will be within 12 months
in 80% to 90% ofpatients. Survival curves from represen-
tative series are given in Figures 2 to 4 and the hepatic
metastasis registry retrospective recapitulation of all the
major individual series patients' survival rates is shown in
No comparable survival data is apparent in any ofthe
natural history series or in any reports of alternative re-
gional or systemic therapy for isolated liver metastases..
Despite anecdotal reports oflong-term survivors with un--.
treated regional recurrence of colon or rectum cancer,'3
no survival curve plateaus have ever been shown except
in patients after successful surgical resection. Only in this
small, admittedly select group is cure possible.
Patterns of Failure
Analysis of failure after successful hepatic metastasis
resection is also valuable to assess possible benefit to the
patient. A review of the patterns of failure data from
available individual series, and as summarized in the
Hughes et al.34 tumor registry, is given in Table 5.
Because patient selection among the individual series
is varied, the patterns of failure found after surgery also
varied. One can occasionally infer obvious inclusion cri-
teria that are inappropriate. For instance, several groups
N = 27
FIG. 2. Cumulative probability ofsurvival (%) of 141 patients related to
years of survival after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal
cancer. N = number ofpatients available for observation at 5, 7, and 9
years. After 5 years, observed survival rate parallels expected survival.27
have included patients for resection despite finding extra-
hepatic abdominal disease. Naturally, all ofthese patients
failed, usually quickly, often with diffuse abdominal re-
currence.55 None ofthese patients should undergo hepatic
Our initial analysis of failure after hepatic metastasis
resection surprised us. We had expected the residual or
regenerated liver to be the most probable site ofsecondary
recurrence. However, many successfully operated patients
NEDH LIVER RESECTION
FOR COLORECTAL METASTASES
ALL PATIENTS N
FIG. 3. Disease-free survival
rate with median follow-up of
approximately 24 months.29
K-M actuarlal disease froe survival
VOL. 210.- NO. 2
Ann. Surg.* August 1989
STEELE AND RAVIKUMAR
REGISTRY OF HEPATIC METASTASES
Disease Free Survival
FIG. 4. Survival (-) and disease-free survival (-) rates for 859 patients
who have undergone hepatic resection for colorectal carcinoma metastases
to the liver.35
who eventually experience secondary recurrence no longer
die from progression oftheir liver-only disease. Our data
was based on an early series of only 40 colon or rectum
carcinoma patients who underwent successful resection
oftheir liver metastases. Pulmonary secondary recurrence
was by far most prevalent among those who failed. We
speculated on three possible causes. Occult disease in the
lung might not be discoverable by any ofour preoperative
staging procedures. Liver metastasis resection could have
seeded tumor to the lung or stimulated the growth of al-
ready-present occult disease in the lung. The rate ofgrowth
of the pulmonary metastases might be different than the
rate ofgrowth ofthe liver metastases and simply not have
been evident in patients who otherwise would have died
had their liver disease not been successfully resected. There
is no way to decide among these possibilities. Nevertheless,
analysis ofpatterns offailure in our patients led to a con-
clusion shared by other investigators. Successful resection
of isolated recurrence from colon and rectum carcinoma
does change the natural history ofthe disease and probably
changes the proximate cause of death in patients who
ultimately fail. Although other investigators have con-
firmed that extrahepatic failure is predominant in their
patients who have secondary recurrence after initially
successful hepatic metastasis resection, most have noted
that eventually the residual or regenerated liver will be-
come a part of a disseminated disease pattern.
All of these analyses agree that the 70% to 75% of pa-
tients who fail after surgical resection could benefit from
adjuvant systemic therapy, if it were available.
Predictors of Success
As summarized in Table 4, multiple factors may predict
long-term survival after hepatic metastasis resection. Very
few have been uniformly confirmed by individual inves-
tigators. To some extent this is because the clinical phe-
nomena being measured do not have any straightforward
biologic meaning. For instance, to ask if the size of an
individual hepatic metastasis is related to survival after
resection is probably a biologically unclear question. If
an isolated liver metastasis is followed over a long period
of time and the tumor, although large, has not grown
significantly, the patient undoubtedly has a better chance
of surviving in the long-term after resection than if the
same size tumor had, in fact, been growing quickly. In
addition, if one looks at two similarly sized isolated me-
tastases that are small, presumably the metastasis located
in the lateral aspect of the right lobe might be easier to
resect than the 2-cm to 3-cm metastasis sitting in the
depths of the right lobe, nestled between the vena cava
and the origin of the right hepatic vein. Technical con-
siderations and status of tumor-free or "dirty margins"
will affect patient outcome, despite similarity in size.
The question oflatency between primary tumor resec-
tion and hepatic metastasis diagnosis and outcome after
metastasis resection is not as straightforward biologically
as it may seem. It is likely that most patients with clinically
TABLE 5. Patterns ofRecurrence*
Known Sites of Recurrence
*As modified, with permission, from Greenway, B. Br J Surg 1988;
t Hughes et al. contains many cases from the other series.
RESECTION OF HEPATIC METASTASES
evident primary or metastatic colon and rectum cancer
are at the latter stages ofthe natural history oftheir disease.
Therefore, what appear to be major differences in latency
between primary and secondary tumor diagnosis may ac-
tually be a very short interval in the overall natural history
ofthe disease process. Clinically monitored latency would
not be a particularly good predictor ofsurvival except in
the most extreme cases.
The impact ofthe primary colon or rectum carcinoma
stage or site in the colorectum may or may not be related
to outcome. Sex ofthe patient was found to be a discrim-
inant factor only in some studies. And for the reasons
noted above, whether the metastasis is diagnosed at the
time ofthe primary tumor resection or later may or may
not be related to patient survival after hepatic metastasis
resection in the various series.
Despite difficulties in agreeing on all predictors and
despite the complicated biology in any attempt to establish
clinical prognostic criteria, there is some agreement on
rules (Table 6). A patient with more disease in his liver
will be less likely to be cured after hepatic metastasis re-
section than a patient with fewer apparent metastases. We
do not perform major liver resection if more than three
liver metastases are evident before operation. Bilobar in-
volvement does not seem to matter. Patients found at
surgery to have extrahepatic disease should not undergo
hepatic metastasis resection. Age ofa patient is unrelated
to subsequent survival.
If tumor is left at the margin after liver resection, the
patient will not be cured. Several investigators have at-
tempted to define precisely what an adequate tumor-free
margin should be.29'53 Although no agreement exists con-
cerning 1-cm versus 2-cm margins, clearly most liver me-
tastases do not have associated satellite lesions and the
choice of resection should be based on the anatomic lo-
cation of the lesion and the goal of obtaining pathologi-
cally defined, tumor-free surgical margins.
Although hepatic resection for colorectal cancer me-
tastasis is never an "emergency" procedure, there are
practical reasons to avoid extreme delay from diagnosis
to resection. First, the biologic question of whether me-
tastases, themselves, metastasize is still not definitively
answered. Second, ifone ignores an indolent isolated me-
tastasis long enough, a technically straightforward resec-
tion may become more difficult or impossible. And third,
most of us see patients in referral who are usually psy-
chologically prepared for surgery. Few ofour own patients
are enthusiastic when we tell them that a measured delay
until their resectable liver metastasis is removed may be
an important biologic experiment to make sure that their
disease falls into the "good biology" category. Most would
prefer an aggressive approach giving them the benefit of
the doubt. A balance must be sought between the paralysis
of biologic speculation and the hubris of surgical aggres-
sion. For practical purposes we usually suggest no more
TABLE 6. Rules to Obtain Best Outcome
1. Resect metastases only from colorectal cancer primary
2. Resect only when no comorbid disease
3. Resect only when no extrahepatic recurrence
4. Resect three or fewer metastases (either uni- or bilobar)
5. Resect all disease (i.e., obtain tumor-free margins)
than a 1-to-3 month delay between the preoperative stag-
ing studies and scheduled surgical resection.
Hughes et al.35'36 have tried to analyze all long-term
survivors to see ifthey have broken any or all ofthe usual
rules predicting failure after hepatic metastasis resection.
Interestingly, there is no completely effective way to pre-
dict which patients who have resectable liver metastases
will do well and which will not. Thus, in the absence of
any other curative therapy for these patients, thejudgment
of adept surgeons will determine the patient's operative
Analysis of clinical results has already led to adjuvant
treatment protocols after resection of hepatic metas-
tases.78'79 Most such trials are targeted at the second- and
third-line failure sites, including residual liver, lung, and
systemic recurrence noted above. The weak link in these
adjuvant therapy approaches is the ineffectiveness of
present systemic therapy.80 Perhaps biologic response
modifier approaches will be more effective in this group
of patients. However, it seems unlikely that Interleukin-
2/Lymphokine Activated Killer cells (IL2/LAK) will be
useful in any patients with advanced colon and rectum
adenocarcinoma.8' Expansion oftumor infiltrating lym-
phocytes to enable injection ofspecific cytolytic T cells is
conceptually appealing but still completely experimental.
Technical improvements, such as intraoperative ultra-
sound to improve staging and to monitor cryosurgical
therapy, have recently enabled better selection ofpatients
who will benefit from regional therapy and have decreased
surgical risk for those with comorbid disease.82 Our orig-
inal hope was that cryosurgery would allow multiple liver
metastases not amenable to resection to be treated re-
gionally. In addition, we postulated that patients who had
tumors contiguous to major hepatic veins or the vena
cava that were not resectable could have their tumors fro-
zen in situ. After investigating 25 cryosurgically treated
patients we have changed our goals.32 Specifically, if pa-
tients have liver tumors not amenable to resection because
of contiguity with major vessels, generally they can not
be cured by freezing either because blood flow through
major vessels will not allow contiguous tumor cells to be
adequately cooled. Second, technical inadequacies, probe
shape, and lack ofpliability does not allow application of
multiple freeze/thaw cycles to more than four or at most
five liver metastases in any individual patient. Further-
VOl. 210. NO. 2
STEELE AND RAVIKUMAR
EXTEND LEFT REPTIC LOCECT1GY
SLOPE15 :l 9
HEPATIC CRYOSURGERY: CEA FOLLOW-UP
Patients With Minimal Residual Disease After Cryoablation
FIGS. 5A AND B.(A) CEA ki-
(B) CEA kinetics after suc-
MONT/HS FOLLOWING CRYOSURGERY
Ann. Surg. *August 1989
Vol. 210.No. 2 RESECTION OF HEPATIC METASTASES 137
more, metastases must be accessible to probe placement
(i.e., not high over the dome ofthe right lobe). Thus, the
hope for an increase in patients appropriate for regional
therapy has not occurred. What has evolved is the gradual
substitution ofcryosurgical ablation in place ofresection,
particularly in high-risk patients. Early indications show
that the survival curves ofcryosurgically treated patients
may be the same as our patients who have had successfully
resected liver metastases. Confirmation by other investi-
gators, greater numbers, and median follow-up in our se-
ries will be necessary before this becomes a conventionally
applied alternative to surgical resection.
Application ofconventional and new serologic markers
to patients undergoing therapy for isolated regional liver
recurrence has allowed us to define a semi-quantitative
relationship between CEA and tumor volume,83 and has
helped to define the kinetics of CEA fall after complete
or incomplete liver metastasis resection.23 Serial CEA
monitoring after successful freezing of liver tumors gives
a completely different slope of decline, presumably be-
cause the frozen tumor is left in situ (Figs. 5A and B).
Molecular biologic probes, which will eventually predict
what primary colon and rectum cancers will metastasize
and where, are presently being investigated.84 The char-
acterization of various cell-surface and transmembrane
receptors, such as EGFr and laminin binding molecules,
on primary tumor, regional lymph node metastases, and
hepatic metastases from the same patient will help us elu-
cidate the mechanisms of invasion and site-specific me-
Key future goals will be to predict the biologic behavior
of colorectal carcinomas with precision and to predict
which regional metastases do not represent early markers
ofwidespread systemic recurrence. Until we can prevent
metastases altogether or have available effective systemic
therapy options, we must continue to use excellent clinical
judgment to select the most appropriate patients with liver
metastases for surgical resection. We must continue to
improve our surgical techniques and refine our approaches
based on analysis of immediate and long-term failure.
And we must remember that currently surgery offers the
only hope ofcure to these patients.
We thank Suzanne Altman Offit and Janet Morse Fox for expert
1. Pestana C, Reitemeier RJ, Moertel CG, et al. The natural history
ofcarcinoma ofthe colon and rectum. Am J Surg 1964;108:826-
2. Goslin R, Steele G, Jr, Zamcheck N, et al. Factors influencing survival
in patients with hepatic metastases from adenocarcinoma ofthe
colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 1982;25:749-754.
3. Jaffe BM, Donegan WL, Watson F, Spratt JS. Factors influencing
survival in patients with untreated hepatic metastases. Surg Gy-
necol Obstet 1968;127:1-1 1.
4. Bengmark S, Hafstrom L. The natural history of primary and sec-
ondary malignant tumors ofthe liver. I. The prognosis for patients
with hepatic metastases from colonic and rectal carcinoma verified
by laparotomy. Cancer 1969;23: 198-202.
5. Oxley EM, Ellis H. Prognosis ofcarcinoma ofthe large bowel in the
presence of liver metastases. Br J Surg 1969;56:149-152.
6. Cady B, Monson DO, Swinton NW. Survival ofpatients after colonic
resection for carcinoma with simultaneous liver metastases. Surg
Gynecol Obstet 1970;131:697-700.
7. Abrams MS, Lerner HJ. Survival ofpatients at Pennsylvania Hospital
with hepatic metastases from carcinoma ofthe colon and rectum.
Dis Colon Rectum 1971 ;14:431-434.
8. Neilsen J, Balslev I, Jensen H-E. Carcinoma ofthe colon with liver
metastases. Acta Chir Scand 197 1;137:463-465.
9. Haden H, Anderson B. Survival ofpatients with untreated liver me-
tastases from colorectal cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol 1975;10:
10. Wood CB, Gillis CR, Blumgart LH. A retrospective study of the
natural history of patients with liver metastases from colorectal
cancer. Clin Oncol 1976;2:285-288.
11. Welch JP, Donaldson GA. Detection and treatment of recurrent
cancer of the colon and rectum. Am J Surg 1978;135:505-51 1.
12. Bengtsson G, Carlsson G, Hafstrom L, Jonsson P-E. Natural history
ofpatients with untreated liver metastases from CRC. Am J Surg
13. Levine AW, Donegan WL, Irwin M. Adenocarcinoma ofthe colon
with hepatic metastases. Fifteen year survival. JAMA 1982;247:
14. Cady B. Natural history of primary and secondary tumors of the
liver. Semin Oncol 1983;10:127-133.
15. Lahr CJ, Scong S-J, Cloud G, et al. A multifactorial analysis of
prognostic factors in patients with liver metastases from colorectal
carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1983;1:720-726.
16. Wagner JS, Adson MA, Van Heerden JA, et al. The natural history
ofhepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1984;199:
17. Wood CB. Natural history of liver metastases. In Van de Velde
CJH, Sugarbaker ME, eds. Liver Metastasis. Basic Aspects, De-
tection and Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, 1984;47-54.
18. Finan PJ, Marshall RJ, Cooper EH, Giles CR. Factors affecting sur-
vival in patients with synchronous hepatic metastases from co-
lorectal cancer: a clinical and computer analysis. Br J Surg
19. Fujimoto S, Miyazaki M, Kitsukawa Y, et al. Long term survivors
of colo-rectal cancer with unresectable hepatic metastases. Dis
Colon Rectum 1985;28:588-591.
20. Finlay IG, McArdle CS. Occult hepatic metastases in colorectal car-
cinoma. Br J Surg 1986;73:732-735.
21. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Adjuvant therapy of colon
cancer-results of a prospectively randomized trial. N Engl J
22. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. A controlled trial ofadjuvant
chemotherapy, radiation therapy or combined chemo-radiation
therapy following curative resection for rectal carcinoma. N Engl
J Med 1985;312:1465-1472.
23. Steele G, Jr, Osteen RT, Wilson RE, et al. Patterns of failure after
surgical cure oflarge liver tumors. Am J Surg 1984;147:554-559.
24. Onik G, Kane R, Steele G, Jr, et al. Monitoring hepatic cryosurgery
with sonography. Am J Roentgenology 1986;147:665-669.
25. Fortner JG. Recurrence ofcolorectal cancer after hepatic resection.
Am J Surg 1988; 155:378-382.
26. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Protocol GITSG 6584-Hepatic
metastasis resection prospective registry. In preparation.
27. Adson MA. Resection of liver metastases-When is it worthwhile?
World J Surg 1987;11:511-520.
28. Adson MA. Cannon lecture: hepatic metastases in perspective. Am
J Roentgenology 1983;140:695-700.
29. Cady B, Saenz N, McDermott W, et al. Hepatic metastases from
colorectal cancer: prognostic features for hepatic resection. Arch
Surg. In press.
30. Finlay IG, Meek D, Brunton F, McArdle GS. Growth rate ofhepatic
metastases in colorectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1988;75:641-644.
STEELE AND RAVIKUMAR
Ann. Surg.-August 1989
31. Steele G, Jr, Compton CC. Case records ofthe Massachusetts General
Hospital: a 40-year-old woman with epigastric pain and an in-
trahepatic mass. New Engl J Med 1988;319:1718-1725.
32. Steele G, Jr, Ravikumar TS, Benotti PN. New surgical treatments
for recurrent colorectal cancer. Cancer. In press.
33. Foster JH, Berman MM. Solid liver tumors. Major Problems in
Clinical Surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977;22: 1-342.
34. Hughes KS, Simon R, Songhorabodi S, et al. Resection ofthe liver
for colorectal carcinoma metastases: a multi-institutional study
of patterns of recurrence. Surgery 1986;100:278-84.
36. Hughes KS, Simon R, Songhorabodi S, et al. Resection ofthe liver
for colorectal carcinoma metastases: a multi-institutional study
of long term survivors. Surgery 1988;103:278-88.
35. Hughes KS, Rosenstein RB, Simon R, et al. Resection of the liver
for colorectal carcinoma metastases: a multi-institutional study
of indications for resection. Dis Colon Rectum 1988;31:1-4.
37. Pack GT, Brasfield RD. Metastatic carcinoma of the liver. Am J
38. Attiyeh FF, Wanebo HJ, Stearns MW. Hepatic resection for metastasis
from colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1978;21:160-2.
39. Wanebo HJ, Semoglov C, Attiyeh F, Stearns MJ. Surgical manage-
ment of patients with primary operable colorectal cancer and
synchronous liver metastases. Am J Surg 1978;135:81-85.
40. Fortner JG, Silva JS, Golbey RB, et al. Multivariate analysis of a
personal series of 242 consecutive patients with liver metastases
from colo-rectal cancer. I. Treatment by hepatic resection. Ann
41. Butler J, Attiyeh FF, Daly JM. Hepatic resection for metastases of
the colon and rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;162:109-113.
42. Flanagan L, Foster JH. Hepatic resection for metastatic cancer. Am
J Surg 1967;113:551-557.
43. Foster JH. Survival after liver resection for cancer. Cancer 1970;26:
44. Foster JH. Survival after liver resection for secondary tumors. Am
J Surg 1978;135:389-394.
45. Foster JH, Lundy J. Liver metastases. Curr Probl Surg 1981;28:3.
46. Wilson SM, Adson MA. Surgical treatment of hepatic metastases
from colo-rectal cancers. Arch Surg 1976;1 1:330-334.
47. Adson MA, Van Heerden JA. Major hepatic resections for metastatic
colo-rectal cancer. Ann Surg 1980;191:576-583.
48. Adson MA, Van Heerden JA, Adson MH, et al. Resection ofhepatic
metastases from colo-rectal cancer. Arch Surg 1984;119:647-651.
49. Logan SE, Meier SJ, Ramming KP, et al. Hepatic resection ofmet-
astatic colo-rectal carcinoma. A ten year experience. Arch Surg
50. Thompson HH, Tompkins RK, Longmire WP. Major hepatic re-
section: A 25-year experience. Ann Surg 1983;197:375-388.
51. Taylor B, Langer B, Falk RE, Ambus V. Role of resection in the
management ofmetastases ofthe liver. Can J Surg 1983;26:215-
52. Cobourn CS, Makowka L, Langer B, et al. Examination of patient
selection and outcome for hepatic resection for metastic disease.
Surg Gynecol Obstet 1987;165:239-246.
53. Cady B, McDermott WV. Major hepatic resection for metachronous
metastases from colon cancer. Ann Surg 1985;201:204-209.
54. Ekberg H, Tranberg K-G, Andersson R, et al. Determinants of sur-
vival in liver resection for colorectal secondaries. Br J Surg
55. Ekberg H, Tranberg K-G, Andersson R, et al. Patterns ofrecurrence
in liver resection for colorectal secondaries. World J Surg 1987;1 1:
56. Quattlebaum JK. Hepatic lobectomy for benign and malignant le-
sions. Surg Clin North Am 1962;42:507-518.
57. Woodington GF, Waugh JM. Results of resection of metastatic tu-
mors of the liver. Am J Surg 1963;105:24-29.
58. Boey J, Choi TK, Wong J, Ong GB. Carcinoma of the colon and
rectum with liver involvement. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;153:
59. Blumgart LH, Allison DJ. Resection and embolization in the man-
agement ofsecondary hepatic tumors. World J Surg 1982;6:320-
60. Morrow CE, Grage TB, Sutherland DER, Najarian TS. Hepatic re-
section for secondary neoplasms. Surgery 1982;92:610-614.
61. Rajpal S, Dasmahapatra KS, Ledesma ET, et al. Extensive resections
of isolated metastasis from carcinoma ofthe colon and rectum.
Surg Gynecol Obstet 1982;155:813-816.
62. Iwatsuki S, Byers WS, Jr, Starzl TE. Experience with 150 liver re-
sections. Ann Surg 1983;197:247-253.
63. Kortz WJ, Meyers WC, Hanks JB, et al. Hepatic resection for met-
astatic cancer. Ann Surg 1984;199:182-186.
64. Nims TA. Resection ofthe liver for metastatic cancer. Surg Gynecol
Obstet 1984;1 58:46-48.
65. Tomas de la Vega JE, Donahue JE, Doolas A, et al. A ten year
experience with hepatic resection. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1984;159:
66. August DA, Sugarbaker PH, Ottow RT, et al. Hepatic resection of
colo-rectal metastases. Ann Surg 1985;201:210-218.
67. Coppa GF, Eng K, Ranson JHC, et al. Hepatic resection for met-
astatic colon and rectal cancer. An evaluation of preoperative
and postoperative factors. Ann Surg 1985;202:203-208.
68. Fegiz G, Bezzi M, DeAngelis R, et al. Surgical treatment of liver
metastases from colorectal cancer. Ital J Surg Sci 1985;15:259-
69. Petrelli NJ, Nambisan RN, Herrera L, Mittelman A. Hepatic resec-
tion for isolated metastasis from colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg
70. Gennari L, Doci R, Bozzetti F, et al. Surgical treatment of hepatic
metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1986;203:49-54.
71. Bozzetti F, Bignami P, Morabito A, et al. Patterns offailure following
surgical resection ofcolorectal cancer liver metastases. Ann Surg
72. Nordlinger B, Quilichini MA, Parc R, et al. Hepatic resection from
colo-rectal liver metastases. Influence on survival ofpre-operative
factors and surgery forrecurrences. 80 cases. Ann Surg 1987;205:
73. Sesto ME, Vogt DP, Hermann RE. Hepatic resection in 128 patients:
a 24-year experience. Surgery 1987;102:846-85 1.
74. Brown DA, Pommier RF, Woltering EA, Fletcher WS. Non anatomic
hepatic resection for secondary hepatic tumors with special ref-
erence to hemostatic technique. Arch Surg 1988;123:1063-1066.
75. Stephenson KR, Steinberg SM, Hughes KS, et al. Perioperative blood
transfusions are associated with decreased time to recurrence and
decreased survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases.
Ann Surg 1988;208:679-687.
76. Starzl TE, Koep LJ, Weil R, et al. Right trisegmnentectomy for hepatic
neoplasms. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1980;150:208-214.
77. Starzl TE, Iwatsuki S, Show BW, Jr, et al. Left hepatic trisegmen-
tectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1982;155:21-27.
78. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Adjuvant hepatic artery
chemo infusion trial after hepatic metastasis resection.
79. National Cancer Institute Adjuvant IL2/LAK therapy after hepatic
80. Lise M, Gerard A, Nitti D, et al. Adjuvant therapy for colorectal
cancer. The EORTC experience and a review of the literature.
Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:847-854.
81. Rosenberg SA, Packard BS, Aebersold PM, et al. Use of tumor-
infiltrating lymphocytes and interleukin-2 in the immunotherapy
ofpatients with metastatic melanoma. A preliminary report. New
Engl J Med 1988;319:1676-1680.
82. Ravikumar TS, Kane R, Cady B, et al. Hepatic cryosurgery with
intraoperative ultrasound monitoring for metastatic colon car-
cinoma. Arch Surg 1987;122:403-409.
83. Bronstein BR, Steele G, Jr,EnsmingelW, et al. The use oflimitations
of serial plasma carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels as a
monitor of changing metastatic liver tumor volume in patients
receiving chemotherapy. Cancer 1980;46:266-272.
84. Steele G, Jr, Thomas P. Biologic perspectives and new treatment
approaches in hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma. In
Levin B, ed. Gastrointestinal Cancer: Current Approaches to Di-
agnosis and Treatment. Austin: University ofTexas Press, 1988:
85. Yow H, WongJM, Chen HS, et al. Molecular cloning and complete
sequence ofa full-length cDNA encoding a laminin-binding pro-
tein and increasedmRNA expression in human colon carcinomas.
Proc Natl Acad Sci 1988;85:6394-6398.