Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: A systematic review of published studies

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

No consensus on the indications for surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases exists. This systematic review has been undertaken to assess the published evidence for its efficacy and safety and to identify prognostic factors. Studies were identified by computerised and hand searches of the literature, scanning references and contacting investigators. The outcome measures were overall survival, disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and cost effectiveness, and a qualitative summary of the trends across all studies was produced. Only 30 of 529 independent studies met all the eligibility criteria for the review, and data on 30-day mortality and morbidity only were included from a further nine studies. The best available evidence came from prospective case series, but only two studies reported outcomes for all patients undergoing surgery. The remainder reported outcomes for selected groups of patients: those undergoing hepatic resection or those undergoing curative resection. Postoperative mortality rates were generally low (median 2.8%). The majority of studies described only serious postoperative morbidity, the most common being bile leak and associated perihepatic abscess. Approximately 30% of patients remained alive 5 years after resection and around two-thirds of these are disease free. The quality of the majority of published papers was poor and ascertaining the benefits of surgical resection of colorectal hepatic metastases is difficult in the absence of randomised trials. However, it is clear that there is group of patients with liver metastases who may become long-term disease- free survivors following hepatic resection. Such survival is rare in apparently comparable patients who do not have surgical treatment. Further work is needed to more accurately define this group of patients and to determine whether the addition of adjuvant treatments results in improved survival.

Related collections

Most cited references 101

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Clinical score for predicting recurrence after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of 1001 consecutive cases.

Y Fong, J Fortner, R L Sun … (1999)

There is a need for clearly defined and widely applicable clinical criteria for the selection of patients who may benefit from hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer. Such criteria would also be useful for stratification of patients in clinical trials for this disease. Clinical, pathologic, and outcome data for 1001 consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer between July 1985 and October 1998 were examined. These resections included 237 trisegmentectomies, 394 lobectomies, and 370 resections encompassing less than a lobe. The surgical mortality rate was 2.8%. The 5-year survival rate was 37%, and the 10-year survival rate was 22%. Seven factors were found to be significant and independent predictors of poor long-term outcome by multivariate analysis: positive margin (p = 0.004), extrahepatic disease (p = 0.003), node-positive primary (p = 0.02), disease-free interval from primary to metastases 1 (p = 0.0004), largest hepatic tumor >5 cm (p = 0.01), and carcinoembryonic antigen level >200 ng/ml (p = 0.01). When the last five of these criteria were used in a preoperative scoring system, assigning one point for each criterion, the total score was highly predictive of outcome (p < 0.0001). No patient with a score of 5 was a long-term survivor. Resection of hepatic colorectal metastases may produce long-term survival and cure. Long-term outcome can be predicted from five criteria that are readily available for all patients considered for resection. Patients with up to two criteria can have a favorable outcome. Patients with three, four, or five criteria should be considered for experimental adjuvant trials. Studies of preoperative staging techniques or of adjuvant therapies should consider using such a score for stratification of patients.

0 comments Cited 477 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan Study Group.

Leonard Saltz, John V. Cox, Charles Blanke … (2000)

The combination of fluorouracil and leucovorin has until recently been standard therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan prolongs survival in patients with colorectal cancer that is refractory to treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin. In a multicenter trial, we compared a combination of irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin with bolus doses of fluorouracil and leucovorin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. A third group of patients received irinotecan alone. Patients were randomly assigned to receive irinotecan (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously), fluorouracil (500 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus), and leucovorin (20 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) weekly for four weeks every six weeks; fluorouracil (425 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) and leucovorin (20 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) daily for five consecutive days every four weeks; or irinotecan alone (125 mg per square meter intravenously) weekly for four weeks every six weeks. End points included progression-free survival and overall survival. Of 683 patients, 231 were assigned to receive irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin; 226 to receive fluorouracil and leucovorin; and 226 to receive irinotecan alone. In an intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin, treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (median, 7.0 vs. 4.3 months; P=0.004), a higher rate of confirmed response (39 percent vs. 21 percent, P<0.001), and longer overall survival (median, 14.8 vs. 12.6 months; P=0.04). Results for irinotecan alone were similar to those for fluorouracil and leucovorin. Grade 3 (severe) diarrhea was more common during treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin than during treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin, but the incidence of grade 4 (life-threatening) diarrhea was similar in the two groups (<8 percent). Grade 3 or 4 mucositis, grade 4 neutropenia, and neutropenic fever were less frequent during treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin. Adding irinotecan to the regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin did not compromise the quality of life. Weekly treatment with irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin is superior to a widely used regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival.

0 comments Cited 418 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial.

J. Douillard, D. Cunningham, A D Roth … (2000)

Irinotecan is active against colorectal cancer in patients whose disease is refractory to fluorouracil. We investigated the efficacy of these two agents combined for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. 387 patients previously untreated with chemotherapy (other than adjuvant) for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned open-label irinotecan plus fluorouracil and calcium folinate (irinotecan group, n=199) or fluorouracil and calcium folinate alone (no-irinotecan group, n=188). Infusion schedules were once weekly or every 2 weeks, and were chosen by each centre. We assessed response rates and time to progression, and also response duration, survival, and quality of life. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population and on evaluable patients. The response rate was significantly higher in patients in the irinotecan group than in those in the no-irinotecan group (49 vs 31%, p<0.001 for evaluable patients, 35 vs 22%, p<0.005 by intention to treat). Time to progression was significantly longer in the irinotecan group than in the no-irinotecan group (median 6.7 vs 4.4 months, p<0.001), and overall survival was higher (median 17.4 vs 14.1 months, p=0.031). Some grade 3 and 4 toxic effects were significantly more frequent in the irinotecan group than in the no-irinotecan group, but effects were predictible, reversible, non-cumulative, and manageable. Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil and calcium folinate was well-tolerated and increased response rate, time to progression, and survival, with a later deterioration in quality of life. This combination should be considered as a reference first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

0 comments Cited 344 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Br J Cancer

Title: British Journal of Cancer

ISSN (Print): 0007-0920

ISSN (Electronic): 1532-1827

Publication date (Electronic): 04 April 2006

Publication date (Print): 10 April 2006

Volume: 94

Issue: 7

Pages: 982-999

Affiliations

[1 ]Cancer Research UK Clinical Centre, MP824, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK

[2 ]University Surgery, F Level Centre Block (MP816), Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK

[3 ]Department of Clinical and Surgical Sciences, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Old Dalkeith Road, Edinburgh, Scotland EH16 4SA, UK

[4 ]Department of Surgery, University Hospital Aintree, Longmoor Lane, Liverpool L9 7AL, UK

[5 ]Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, North Hampshire Hospital, Aldermaston Road, Basingstoke RG24 9NA, UK

Author notes

[* ]Author for correspondence: j.n.primrose@ 123456soton.ac.uk

Article

Publisher Item ID: 6603033

DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603033

PMC ID: 2361241

PubMed ID: 16538219

SO-VID: 27127feb-4363-4034-aa9c-790d2d3e18a6

History

Date received : 02 November 2005

Date revision received : 07 February 2006

Date accepted : 07 February 2006

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.