Limited but definite efficacy of prophylactic hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy after curative resection of colorectal liver metastases

Predictors of survival after hepatic resection among patients with colorectal liver metastasis

“…Presently, there is no standard guideline for CLM patients after liver resection. There are a few randomised clinical trials published that evaluate the survival effects of HAI of FUdR and/or intravenous systemic chemotherapy after hepatic resection (Lygidakis et al, 1995;Asahara et al, 1998;Lorenz et al, 1998;Lorenz and Muller, 2000;Tono et al, 2000;Kemeny et al, 2002;Kemeny and Gonen, 2005;Portier et al, 2006). Most of these studies, however, have limited statistical power due to small sample sizes (less than 100 subjects) or slow accrual.…”

Management of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Port Following Prophylactic Regional Chemotherapy in Patients who have Undergone Curative Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases

“…The details of this protocol have been previously reported. 7 For the remaining 11 patients, 1 500 mg of 5-FU was administered for 5 h once a week for 8 weeks (protocol B). Protocol B was derived from the HAI regimen for unresectable hepatic malignancies described by Arai et al 12 with modifications.…”

“…[1][2][3] In addition, prophylactic hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) chemotherapy of fluorouracil has recently been recognized to be an efficient modality to prevent recurrent disease in the residual liver. [4][5][6][7] However, there have been no reports referring to the management of the infusion devices, including the intraarterial catheter and the implantable port, after the completion of the limited period of adjuvant regional chemotherapy. To maintain the infusion system, it is necessary to inject heparin sodium into the port regularly, which requires patients to visit the clinic frequently.…”

A systematic review and meta-analysis to reappraise the role of adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion for colorectal cancer liver metastases

“…After an independent review, 321 studies were excluded due to the irrelevance to the current analysis or their disagreement with the inclusion criteria. Finally, nine studies were eligible for this meta-analysis [8,9,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] (Fig. 1).…”