4.3 Article

Outcomes of 1,639 hepatectomies for non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastases: a multicenter analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES
Volume 25, Issue 11, Pages 465-475

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.587

Keywords

Cholangiocarcinoma; Gastric carcinoma; Hepatectomy; Non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastasis; Pancreatic carcinoma

Funding

  1. Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, AMED

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Whether non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastasis (NCNNLM) should be treated surgically remains unclear. Methods Data regarding 1,639 hepatectomies performed between 2001 and 2010 for 1,539 patients with NCNNLM were collected from 124 institutions. Patient characteristics, types of primary tumor, characteristics of liver metastases, and post-hepatectomy outcomes were analyzed. Results The five most frequent primary tumors were gastric carcinoma (540 patients [35%]), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (204 patients [13%]), biliary carcinoma (150 patients [10%]), ovarian cancer (107 patients [7%]), and pancreatic carcinoma (77 patients [5%]). R0/1 hepatectomy was achieved in 90% of patients, with 1.5% in-hospital mortality rate. Overall and disease-free survival rates of 1,465 patients included in survival analysis were 41% and 21%, respectively, at 5 years, and 28% and 15%, respectively, at 10 years. Five-year survival associated with the five frequent primary tumors were 32%, 72%, 17%, 52%, and 31%, respectively, and factors predictive of a poor outcome differed by the primary tumor type. Conclusions Our data indicated that hepatectomy is safe for NCNNLM and that patient prognoses vary depending on the type of primary tumors. Indications for hepatectomy should be determined with reference to survival rates and risk factors specific to each of the various types of primary tumor.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available