4.6 Article

Outcomes of intensive surveillance after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 97, Issue 10, Pages 1552-1560

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7136

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The impact of computed tomography (CT)-based follow-up for the detection of resectable disease recurrence following surgery for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) was evaluated. Methods: Some 705 patients undergoing resection of CRLM between January 1993 and March 2007 were included. Surveillance comprised 3-monthly CT (thorax, abdomen and pelvis) in the first 2 years after surgery, 6 monthly for 3 years and annually from years 6 to 10. Survival differences following recurrence between patients managed surgically and palliatively were determined, and the cost was calculated. Results: Five-year disease-free and overall survival rates were 28.3 and 32.3 per cent respectively. Of 402 patients who developed recurrence within 2 years, 88 were treated with liver resection alone and 36 with lung and/or liver resection. Their 5-year overall survival rates were 31 and 30 per cent respectively, compared with 3.9 per cent in 278 patients managed palliatively (P < 0.001). For each 3-month interval during the first year of follow-up, patients with recurrence treated surgically had better overall survival than those treated palliatively. The cost of surveillance that identified 124 patients amenable to further resection was 12 pound 338 per operated recurrence. Assuming that patients with recurrence gained 5 years' survival, the mean survival gain was 4.28 years per resection and the cost per life-year gained was 2883 pound. Conclusion: Intensive 3-monthly CT surveillance after liver resection for CRLM detects recurrence that is amenable to further resection in a considerable number of patients. These patients have significantly better survival with a reasonable cost per life-year gained.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available