4.5 Article

The timing of liver resection in patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: a population-based study of current practice and survival

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 486-495

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/codi.14019

关键词

Colorectal cancer; liver metastases; liver resection

资金

  1. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim There is uncertainty regarding the optimal sequence of surgery for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous liver metastases. This study was designed to describe temporal trends and inter-hospital variation in surgical strategy, and to compare long-term survival in a propensity score-matched analysis. Method The National Bowel Cancer Audit dataset was used to identify patients diagnosed with primary CRC between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 who underwent CRC resection in the English National Health Service. Hospital Episode Statistics data were used to identify those with synchronous liver-limited metastases who underwent liver resection. Survival outcomes of propensity score-matched groups were compared. Results Of 1830 patients, 270 (14.8%) underwent a liver-first approach, 259 (14.2%) a simultaneous approach and 1301 (71.1%) a bowel-first approach. The proportion of patients undergoing either a liver-first or simultaneous approach increased over the study period from 26.8% in 2010 to 35.6% in 2015 (P<0.001). There was wide variation in surgical approach according to hospital trust of diagnosis. There was no evidence of a difference in 4-year survival between the propensity score-matched cohorts according to surgical strategy: bowel first vs simultaneous [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI: 0.80-1.06)] or bowel first vs liver first [HR 0.99 (95% CI: 0.82-1.19)]. Conclusion There is evidence of wide variation in surgical strategy in dealing with CRC and synchronous liver metastases. In selected patients, the simultaneous and liver-first strategies have comparable long-term survival to the bowel-first approach.

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

4.5
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