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

ArticleinAnnals of Surgical Oncology 18(7):1939-46 · February 2011with25 Reads
Impact Factor: 3.93 · DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1533-y · Source: PubMed
Abstract

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.

    • "Our study demonstrated that positive margins were related to a more dismal prognosis. This is consistent with the majority of other comparable reports [1,9,242526. 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.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2014 · World Journal of Surgical Oncology
    0Comments 12Citations
    • "Intraoperative ablation extends the limits of hepatectomy in the patients not amenable to complete resection (Brown et al., 2011; Govindarajan et al., 2011; Hammill et al., 2011; Hompes et al., 2011). Portal vein embolization, radiofrequency ablation, two-stage hepatectomy, conversion therapy and reverse treatment strategy along with hepatectomy are used in the presence of extrahepatic disease (Coimbra et al. 2011; Narita et al., 2011, Tsim et al., 2011). Resection of advanced colorectal liver metastases after a second-line chemotherapy regimen is safe and promising in certain cases. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The projections for future growth in the number of new patients with colorectal cancer in most parts of the world remain unfavorable. When we consider the substantial morbidity and mortality that accompanies the disease, the acute need for improvements and better solutions in patient care becomes evident. This volume,organized in five sections, represents a synopsis of the significant efforts from scientists, clinicians and investigators towards finding improvements in different patient care aspects including nutrition, diagnostic approaches, treatment strategies with the addition of some novel therapeutic approaches, and prevention. For scientists involved in investigations that explore fundamental cellular events in colorectal cancer, this volume provides a framework for translational integration of cell biological and clinical information. Clinicians as well asother healthcare professionals involved in patient management for colorectal cancer will find this volume useful.
    Full-text · Chapter · Feb 2012
    0Comments 3Citations
  • [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.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2012 · Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery
    0Comments 3Citations
Show more