4.7 Article

Radiofrequency ablation for metachronous liver metastasis from colorectal cancer after curative surgery

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 227-232

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-007-9625-z

Keywords

colorectal cancer; liver metastasis; RFA; resection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We compared outcomes of surgery and radiofrequency thermal ablation (RFA) in patients with metachronous liver metastases. Methods: Between October 1995 and December 2005, 59 patients underwent hepatic resection and 30 underwent RFA for metachronous liver metastases. Patients with extrahepatic metastases, those who underwent both types of treatment, and those with synchronous hepatic metastasis were excluded. Results: The two groups had similar mean age, sex ratio, comorbid medical conditions, primary disease stage, and frequency of solitary metastases. Preoperative mean serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level was significantly higher in the RFA group (13.4 ng/mL vs. 7.7 ng/mL; p = 0.02). Mean diameter of hepatic metastases was significantly greater in the resection than in the RFA group (3.1 cm vs. 2.0 cm; p = 0.001). Recurrence after treatment of metastasis was observed in 18 of 30 (60.0%) RFA and 33 of 59 (56%) resection patients. Local recurrence at the RFA site was observed in 7 of 30 (23%) patients. Time to recurrence (15 vs. 8 months, p = 0.02) and overall survival (56 vs. 36 months, p = 0.005) were significantly longer in the resection than in the RFA group. In the 69 patients with solitary metastases of diameter <= 3 cm, time to recurrence (p = 0.004) and overall survival were significantly greater in the resection group. Conclusions: Compared with hepatic resection, RFA for metachronous hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer was associated with higher local recurrence and shorter recurrence-free and overall survival rates, even in patients with solitary, small (<= 3 cm) lesions.

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