4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Results of hepatic resection for sarcoma metastatic to liver

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGERY
Volume 234, Issue 4, Pages 540-547

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200110000-00013

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 47179, P01 CA047179] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To evaluate the outcome of patients with liver metastases from sarcoma who underwent hepatic resection at a single institution and were followed up prospectively. Summary Background Data The value of hepatic resection for metastatic sarcoma is unknown. Methods There were 331 patients with liver metastases from sarcoma who were admitted to Memorial Hospital from 1982 to 2000, and 56 of them underwent resection of all gross hepatic disease. Patient, tumor, and treatment variables were analyzed to assess outcome. Results Of the 56 patients who underwent complete resection, 34 (61 %) had gastrointestinal stromal tumors or gastrointestinal leiomyosarcomas. Half of the patients required an hepatic lobectomy or extended lobectomy. There were no perioperative deaths in the completely resected group, although 3 of the 75 patients who underwent exploration (4%) died. The postoperative 1-, 3-, and 5-year actuarial survival rates were 88 %, 50%, and 30%, respectively, with a median of 39 months. In contrast, the 5-year survival rate of patients who did not undergo complete resection was 4%. On multivariate analysis, a time interval from the primary tumor to the development of liver metastasis greater than 2 years was a significant predictor of survival after hepatectomy. Conclusions Complete resection of liver metastases from sarcoma in selected patients is associated with prolonged survival. Hepatectomy should be considered when complete gross resection is possible, especially when the time to the development of liver metastasis exceeds 2 years.

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