4.7 Article

Hepatic and extrahepatic colorectal metastases: When resectable, their localization does not matter, but their total number has a prognostic effect

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 11, Pages 900-909

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/ASO.2005.01.010

Keywords

colorectal cancer; liver metastases; extrahepatic disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The presence of extrahepatic disease (EHD) is considered a contraindication to hepatectomy in patients with colorectal liver metastases. After resection, the prognosis is based more on the total number of resected metastases (located inside and outside the liver) than on the site of these metastases (only inside the liver or not). Methods: A total of 308 patients with colorectal cancer underwent hepatectomy, and 84 (27%) also underwent resection of miscellaneous EHD. The study was a prospective data registration and retrospective analysis. When considering the total number of resected metastases, each liver metastasis and each EHD location was counted as one lesion. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: The median follow-up was 99 months. The overall 5-year survival rate was 32%. In the multivariate analysis, the total number of metastases (inside or outside the liver) had a greater prognostic value than the criterion presence or absence of EHD. Considering the total number of resected metastases (whatever their site), 5-year survival rates were 38% (SD: 4%) in the group with one to three metastases, 29% (SD: 5%) in patients with four to six metastases, and 18% (SD: 5%) in patients with more than six metastases (P =.002). A very simple prognostic score based on sex and the total number of metastases is proposed. Conclusions: EHD, when resectable, is no longer a contraindication to hepatectomy. More importantly, the total number of the metastases, whatever their location, has a stronger prognostic effect than the site of these metastases.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available