4.4 Article

Outcomes after repeat hepatic resection for recurrent metastatic colorectal cancer: A population-based study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 213, Issue 6, Pages 1053-1059

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.08.014

Keywords

Colorectal cancer; Liver metastases; Clinical outcomes; Population-based study

Categories

Funding

  1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
  2. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: More than half of the patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases develop recurrent hepatic disease. We report management and outcomes of patients undergoing repeat hepatectomy in routine practice. METHODS: All cases of repeat hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastases from 2002 to 2009 in the Canadian Province of Ontario were identified using the population-based Ontario Cancer Registry and linked treatment records. RESULTS: Of 1,310 patients who underwent resection of CRLM, 78 (6.0%) underwent a repeat liver resection. Mean age was 56 years and the median time between resections was 19 months. Compared with the first resection, second resections were associated with fewer lesions (2.7 vs 1.5; P = .001) and fewer major resections (58% vs 31%; P = .024). The size of largest lesion, positive margin rate, length of hospital stay, and 90-day mortality were similar. Unadjusted 5-year overall survival from the time of second resection was 45% (95% confidence interval = 32% to 59%) and cancer-specific survival was 47% (95% confidence interval 5 30% to 64%). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat liver resections for metastatic CRC involve fewer lesions and less extensive surgery and a substantial proportion of patients achieve long-term survival. Crown Copyright (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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