4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Systematic review of outcomes of patients undergoing resection for colorectal liver metastases in the setting of extra hepatic disease

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 50, Issue 10, Pages 1747-1757

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.03.277

Keywords

Colorectal cancer; Colorectal liver metastases; Extra hepatic metastases; Hepatic resection

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Surgical resection for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) can offer patients a significant survival benefit. We hypothesised that patients with CRLM and extra hepatic disease (EHD) undergoing metastasectomy had comparable survival and describe outcomes based on the distribution of metastatic disease. Methods: A systematic search using a predefined registered protocol was undertaken between January 2003 and June 2012. Primary exposure was hepatic resection for CRLM and primary outcome measure was overall survival. Meta-regression techniques were used to analyse differences between patients with and without extra hepatic disease. Findings: From a pool of 4996 articles, 50 were retained for data extraction (3481 CRLM patients with EHD). The median survival (MS) was 30.5 (range, 9-98) months which was achieved with an operative mortality rate of 0-4.2%. The 3-year and 5-year overall survival (OS) were 42.4% (range, 20.6-77%) and 28% (range, 0-61%) respectively. Patients with EHD of the lungs had a MS of 45 (range, 39-98) months versus lymph nodes (portal and para-aortic) 26 (range, 21-48) months versus peritoneum 29 (range, 18-32) months. The MS also varied by the amount of liver disease - 42.2 months (= three lesions). Interpretation: In the evolving landscape of multimodality therapy, selective hepatic resection for CRLM patients with EHD is feasible with potential impact on survival. Patients with minimal liver disease and EHD in the lung achieve the best outcome. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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