Introduction: A variety of factors have been identified in the literature which influence survival following resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Much of this literature is historical, and its relevance to contemporary practice is not known. The aim of this study was to identify those factors which influence survival during the era of preoperative chemotherapy in patients undergoing resection of CRLM in a UK centre. Methods: All patients having liver resection for CRLM during an 11-year period up to 2011 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Prognostic factors analysed included tumour size (≥5 or <5 cm), lymph node status of the primary tumour, margin positivity (R1; <1 mm), neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (for liver), tumour differentiation, number of liver metastases (≥4), preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA; ≥200 ng/ml) and whether metastases were synchronous (i.e. diagnosed within 12 months of colorectal resection) or metachronous to the primary tumour. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan-Meier plots and a log rank test for significance. Multivariate analysis was performed using a Cox regression model. Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS v19, and p < 0.05 was considered to be significant. Results: 432 patients underwent resection of CRLM during this period (67% male; mean age 64.5 years), and of these, 54 (13.5%) had re-resections. The overall 5-year survival in this series was 43% with an actuarial 10-year survival of 40%. A preoperative CEA ≥200 ng/ml was present in 10% of patients and was associated with a poorer 5-year OS (24 vs. 45%; p < 0.001). A positive resection margin <1 mm was present in 16% of patients, and this had a negative impact on 5-year OS (15 vs. 47%; p < 0.001). Tumour differentiation, number, biliary or vascular invasion, size, relationship to primary disease, nodal status of the primary disease or the use of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy had no impact on OS. Multivariate analysis identified only the presence of a positive resection margin (OR 1.75; p < 0.05) and a preoperative CEA ≥200 ng/ml (OR 1.88; p < 0.01) as independent predictors of poor OS. Conclusion: Despite the wide variety of prognostic factors reported in the literature, this study was only able to identify a preoperative CEA ≥200 ng/ml and the presence of tumour within 1 mm of the resection margin as being of value in predicting survival. These variables are likely to identify patients who may benefit from intensive follow-up to enable early aggressive treatment of recurrent disease.
The post-mortem evidence reviewed suggests that the likelihood of metastasis to the cirrhotic liver is lower than that to normal liver. The degree of protection for tumours arising from within the distribution of the portal vein is neither greater nor less than it is overall. Eastern and Western populations appear to have a similar degree of risk reduction. The differences noted were significant on testing in the meta-analysis, but confounding bias accounting for these differences has not been excluded.
Resection increases survival but carries the risk of significant morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous biliary drainage is almost always necessary and endoscopic drainage should be avoided if possible.
A new system designed for cryosurgery of liver metastases is described. The cryoprobe, which utilizes circulating liquid nitrogen and produces a spherical iceball around each metastasis, is controlled by operative ultrasound. There was nor mortality and all patients left hospital within 10 days. Cryotherapy produced an area of destruction within the liver substance which decreased in size by 6 weeks as shown on serial computed tomographic scanning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.