4.4 Article

Results of surgical treatment for multiple (≥5 nodules) bi-lobar hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer

Journal

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
Volume 389, Issue 2, Pages 114-121

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-003-0447-6

Keywords

colorectal cancer; multiple hepatic metastases; bi-lobar hepatic metastases; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; hepatectomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The surgery for the treatment of multiple (greater than or equal to5) bi-lobar hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer is controversial. This retrospective study presents our experience in an attempt to develop reasonable treatment guidelines. Method. One hundred sixty-one consecutive patients who underwent liver resection with curative intent were classified into three groups: H1 (unilateral), H2 (bilateral, less than or equal to4 nodules), or H3 (bilateral, greater than or equal to5 nodules). Results. The overall cumulative 5-year survival rate was 46.7%. Survival was similar among patients with H1, H2, and H3 disease. Thirty-two patients with H3 disease underwent hepatectomy: straightforward hepatectomy in 12, portal vein embolization (PVE) prior to hepatectomy in eight, two-stage hepatectomy in two, and two-stage hepatectomy combined with PVE in ten. Two-stage hepatectomy with or without PVE was the standard approach in patients with synchronous liver metastases. The operating mortality in hepatectomy for H3 disease was 0%, and the morbidity was 15.2%. The overall response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) was 41.7% (5/12). Patients who responded to NAC (n=5) had a better prognosis than non-responders (n=7) (P<0.05). Conclusions. Extended hepatectomy, including preoperative PVE and multi-step hepatectomy, combined with NAC, may result in a favourable prognosis, especially in patients who respond to NAC, but further studies with more patients are needed to confirm this.

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