4.4 Article

Long-term outcomes after surgical resection for gastric cancer liver metastasis: an analysis of 64 macroscopically complete resections

Journal

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
Volume 397, Issue 6, Pages 951-957

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-012-0959-z

Keywords

Gastric cancer liver metastasis (GLM); Prognosis; Liver resection

Categories

Funding

  1. National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund [23-A-14]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The indication for hepatectomy in cases of gastric cancer liver metastases (GLM) remains unclear and it remains controversial whether surgical resection is beneficial for GLM. The objective of this retrospective study was to clarify the indications for and benefit of hepatectomy for GLM. Seventy-three patients underwent hepatectomies for GLM from January 1993 to January 2011. Macroscopically complete (R0 or R1) resection was achieved in 64 patients. Among them, 32 patients underwent synchronous hepatectomy with gastrectomy and the remaining 32 patients underwent metachronous hepatectomy. Repeat hepatectomy was done in 14 patients for resectable intrahepatic recurrences. Clinicopathological factors were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses among patients who received macroscopically complete resection for those affecting survival. The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates after macroscopically complete (R0 or R1) liver resection (n = 64) for GLM were 84, 50, and 37 %, respectively, with a median survival of 34 months. Univariate analysis identified serosal invasion of the primary gastric cancer and blood transfusions during surgery as poor prognosis indicators. By multivariate analysis, serosal invasion of the primary gastric cancer and larger hepatic tumor (> 5 cm in diameter) were found to be independent indicators of poor prognosis. GLM patients with the maximum diameter of hepatic tumors of < 5 cm and without serosal invasion of the primary gastric cancer are the best candidate for hepatectomy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available