4.6 Article

The liver-first approach for locally advanced rectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases

期刊

EJSO
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 591-596

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.12.007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and synchronous liver metastases (sRLM) can be treated according to the liver-first approach. This study aimed to evaluate prognostic factors for completing treatment and in how many patients extensive lower pelvic surgery might have been omitted. Methods: Retrospective analysis of all patients with LARC and sRLM treated at the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute according to the liver-first between 2003 and 2016. Results: In total 129 consecutive patients were included. In 90 patients (70%) the liver-first was completed. Ten patients had a (near) complete response (ypT0-1N0) of their primary tumour. In 36 out of 39 patients not completing the liver-first protocol palliative rectum resection was withheld. Optimal cutoffs for CEA level (53.15 mu g/L), size (3.85 cm) and number (4) of RLMs were identified. A preoperative CEA level above 53.15 mu g/L was an independent predictor for non-completion of the liver-first protocol (p = 0.005). Conclusion: Ten patients had a (near) complete response of their primary tumour and, in retrospect, rectum sparing therapies could have been considered. Together with 36 patient in whom palliative rectum resection was not necessary this entails that nearly 40% patients with LARC and sRLM might be spared major pelvic surgery if the liver-first approach is applied. A predictor (CEA) was found for non completion of the liver-first protocol. The majority of patients underwent resection of both primary tumour and hepatic metastasis with curative intent. These findings together entail that the liver-first approach may be considered in patients with LARC and sRLM. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据