Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1260_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
15 Мб
Скачать
☆
Oncological management of colorectal liver metastases 209
KEY POINTS
• Overall survival for patients with stage IV colon cancer has improved owing to more effective systemic chemotherapy and molecularly targeted agents.
• In the context of novel therapeutic agents and improvements in surgical technique, the indications for resection of metastatic disease are being redefined.
• A multidisciplinary approach is critical.
• Key determinants of outcome are synchronous versus metachronous presentation, disease-free interval, extent of disease, and
response to prior chemotherapy.
• Mutation status analysis of primary tumor and metastases might aid in appropriate selection of patients with CRC liver metastases.
References
1 Choti MA, Sitzmann J, Tiburi M, et al. Trends in long-term
survival following liver resection for hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 2002; 235(6):759 – 766.
2 Kopetz S, Chang G, Overman M, et al. Improved survival in
metastatic colorectal cancer is associated with adoption of hepatic resection and improved chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(22):3677–3683.
3 House MG, Ito H, Gonen M, et al. Survival after hepatic
resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: trends in outcomes for 1,600 patients during two decades at a single institution. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 210(5):744–752, 752–755.
4 Brouquet A, Abdalla E, Kopetz S, et al. High survival rate
after two-stage resection of advanced colorectal liver metas­tases: response-based selection and complete resection define outcome. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29(8):1083–1090.
5 Manfredi S, Bouvier M, Lepage C, et al. Incidence and
patterns of recurrence after resection for cure of colonic cancer in a well defined population. Br J Surg 2006; 93 (9):1115–1122.
6 Manfredi S, Lepage C, Hatem C, et al. Epidemiology and
management of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 2006; 244(2):254–259.
7 Norstein J, Silen W. Natural history of liver metastases
from colorectal carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 1997; 1 (5):398–407.
8 Adam R, Delvart V, Pascal G, et al. Rescue surgery for
unresectable colorectal liver metastases downstaged by chemotherapy: a model to predict long-term survival. Ann Surg 2004; 240(4):644–657; discussion 657–658.
9 Wei AC, Greig P, Grant D, et al. Survival after hepatic
resection for colorectal metastases: a 10-year experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13(5):668–676.
10 Tomlinson JS, Jarnagin W, DeMatteo R, et al. Actual 10-year
survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases defines cure. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(29):4575–4580.
11 Rees M, Tekkis P, Welsh F, et al. Evaluation of long-term
survival after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multifactorial model of 929 patients. Ann Surg 2008; 247(1):125–135.
12 Croome KP, Yamashita MH. Laparoscopic vs open hepatic
resection for benign and malignant tumors: an updated metaanalysis. Arch Surg 2010; 145(11):1109–1118.
13 Matsuda A, Matsumoto S, Seya T, et al. Does postoperative
complication have a negative impact on long-term outcomes following hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastasis? a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20(8):2485–2492. Correa–Gallego C, Gonen M, Fischer M, et al. Perioperative
14
complications influence recurrence and survival after resec­tion of hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20(8):2477–2484.
15 Aloia TA, Zimmitti G, Conrad C, et al. Return to intended
oncologic treatment (RIOT): a novel metric for evaluating the quality of oncosurgical therapy for malignancy. J Surg Oncol 2014; 110(2):107–114.
16 Nordlinger B, Guiguet M, Vaillant J, et al. Surgical resection
of colorectal carcinoma metastases to the liver. A prognostic scoring system to improve case selection, based on 1568 patients. Association Francaise de Chirurgie. Cancer 1996; 77(7):1254–1262.
17 Fong Y, Fortner J, Sun R, et al. Clinical score for predicting
recurrence after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of 1001 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 1999; 230(3):309–318; discussion 318–321.
18 Ekberg H, Tranberg K, Andersson R, et al. Determinants of
survival in liver resection for colorectal secondaries. Br J Surg 1986; 73(9):727–731.
19 Altendorf–Hofmann A, Scheele J. A critical review of the
major indicators of prognosis after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Surg Oncol Clin North Am 2003; 12(1):165–192, xi.
20 Pawlik TM, Abdalla E, Ellis L, et al. Debunking dogma:
surgery for four or more colorectal liver metastases is justi­fied. J Gastrointest Surg 2006; 10(2):240–248.
210 Chapter 13
21 Pawlik TM, Scoggins C, Zorzi D, et al. Effect of surgical margin
status on survival and site of recurrence after hepatic resec­tion for colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 2005; 241 (5):715–722, discussion 722–724.
22 Muratore A, Ribero D, Zimmitti G, et al. Resection margin
and recurrence-free survival after liver resection of colorec­tal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17(5):1324–1329.
23 Shah SA, Haddad R, Al-Sukhni W, et al. Surgical resection of
hepatic and pulmonary metastases from colorectal carci­noma. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 202(3):468–475.
24 Pulitano C, Bodingbauer M, Aldrighetti L, et al. Liver resec-
tion for colorectal metastases in presence of extrahepatic disease: results from an international multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18(5):1380–1388.
25 Brouquet A, Schulick RD, Choti MA. Improved survival
after resection of liver and lung colorectal metastases com­pared with liver-only metastases: a study of 112 patients with limited lung metastatic disease. J Am Coll Surg 2011; 213(1):62–69; discussion 69–71.
26 Pawlik TM, Schulick RD, Choti MA. Expanding criteria for
resectability of colorectal liver metastases. Oncologist 2008; 13(1):51–64.
27 Shindoh J, Tzeng C, Aloia T, et al. Optimal future liver
remnant in patients treated with extensive preoperative chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20(8):2493–2500.
28 Frankel TL, d’Angelica MI. Hepatic resection for colorectal
metastases. J Surg Oncol 2014; 109(1):2–7.
29 Folprecht G, Grothey A, Alberts S, et al. Neoadjuvant treat-
ment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases: correlation between tumour response and resection rates. Ann Oncol 2005; 16(8):1311–1319.
30 Thirion P, Michiels S, Pignon J, et al. Modulation of fluoro-
uracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (18):3766–3775.
31 Advanced Colorectal Cancer Meta-Analysis Project. Modu-
lation of fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: evidence in terms of response rate. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10(6):896–903.
32 Goldberg RM, Sargent D, Morton R, et al. A randomized
controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (1):23–30.
33 De Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M, et al. Leucovorin and
fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line
treat­ment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18 (16):2938–2947.
34 Tournigand C, Andre T, Achille E, et al. FOLFIRI followed by
FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized GERCOR study. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22 (2):229–237.
35 Falcone A, Ricci S, Brunetti I, et al. Phase III trial of infusional
fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOL­FOXIRI) compared with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment for meta­static colorectal cancer: the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(13):1670–1676.
36 Masi G, Vasile E, Loupakis F, et al. Randomized trial of two
induction chemotherapy regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer: an updated analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103 (1):21–30.
37 Alberts SR, Horvath W, Sternfeld W, et al. Oxaliplatin,
fluorouracil, and leucovorin for patients with unresectable liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23(36):9243–9249.
38 Barone C, Nuzzo G, Cassano A, et al. Final analysis of
colorectal cancer patients treated with irinotecan and 5­fluorouracil plus folinic acid neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unresectable liver metastases. Br J Cancer 2007; 97 (8):1035–1039.
39 Souglakos J, Androulakis N, Syrigos K, et al. FOLFOXIRI
(folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) vs FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan) as first­line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC): a multicentre randomised phase III trial from the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Br J Cancer 2006; 94 (6):798–805.
40 Ychou M, Viret F, Kramar A, et al. Tritherapy with fluoro-
uracil/leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRI­NOX): a phase II study in colorectal cancer patients with non-resectable liver metastases. Cancer Chemother Phar­macol 2008; 62(2):195–201.
41 Gruenberger T, Bridgewater J, Chau I, et al. Bevacizumab
plus mFOLFOX-6 or FOLFOXIRI in patients with initially unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer: the OLIVIA multinational randomised phase II trial. Ann Oncol 2015; 26(4):702– 708.
42 Falcone A, Cremolini C, Masi G, et al. FOLFOXIRI/bevaci-
zumab (bev) versus FOLFIRI/bev as first-line treatment in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients
results of the phase III TRIBE trial by GONO group.
(pts): J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (suppl); abstr. 3505.
43 Loupakis F, Cremolini C, Masi G, et al. Initial therapy with
FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal can­cer. N Engl J Med 2014; 371(17):1609–1618.
44 Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab
plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 350(23):2335–2342.
45 Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol N, et al. Bevacizumab in
combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal can­cer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(12):1539–1544.
Oncological management of colorectal liver metastases 211
46 Hurwitz HI, Fehrenbacher L, Hainsworth J, et al. Bevacizu-
mab in combination with fluorouracil and leucovorin: an active regimen for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23(15):3502–3508.
47 Fuchs CS, Marshall J, Barrueco J. Randomized, controlled
trial of irinotecan plus infusional, bolus, or oral fluoropyr­imidines in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal can­cer: updated results from the BICC-C study. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(4):689– 690.
48 Saltz LB, Clarke S, Diaz-Rubio E, et al. Bevacizumab in
combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a random­ized phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(12):2013–2019.
49 Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker D, et al. K-ras
mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorec­tal cancer. N Engl J Med 2008; 359(17):1757–1765.
50 Van Cutsem E, Kohne C, Lang I, et al. Cetuximab plus
irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treat­ment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor KRAS and BRAF muta­tion status. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29(15):2011–2019.
51 Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Hartmann J, et al. Efficacy
according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the OPUS study. Ann Oncol 2011; 22(7):1535–1546.
52 Folprecht G, Gruenberger T, Bechstein W, et al. Tumour
response and secondary resectability of colorectal liver metastases following neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cetuximab: the CELIM randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11(1):38–47.
53 Douillard JY, Siena S, Cassidy J, et al. Randomized, phase III
trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leuco­vorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(31):4697–4705.
54 Ye LC, Liu T, Ren L, et al. Randomized controlled trial of
cetuximab plus chemotherapy for patients with KRAS wild­type unresectable colorectal liver-limited metastases. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(16):1931–1938.
55 Primrose J, Falk S, Finch-Jones M, et al. System ic chemo-
therapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resect­able colorectal liver metastasis: the New EPOC randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; doi http://dx.doi.org/
016/S1470–2045(14)70105–6
10.1
56 Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, et al. Wild-type KRAS
is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26 (10):1626–1634.
57 Douillard JY, Oliner K, Siena S, et al. Panitumumab-FOL-
FOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 369(11):1023–1034.
58 Tejpar S, Lenz H, Kohne C, et al. Effect of KRAS and NRAS
mutations on treatment outcomes in patients with
metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated first-line with cetuximab plus FOLFOX4: new results from the OPUS study. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (suppl 3); abstr. LBA444.
59 Ciardiello F, Lenz H, Kohne C, et al. Treatment outcome
according to tumor RAS mutation status in CRYSTAL study patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) random­ized to FOLFIRI with/without cetuximab. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (5)(suppl); abstr. 3506.
60 Nordlinger B, Sorbye H, Glimelius B, et al. Perioperative
chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC Intergroup trial 40983): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 371(9617):1007–1016.
61 Nordlinger B, Sorbye H, Glimelius B, et al. Perioperative
FOLFOX4 chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal can­cer (EORTC 40983): long-term results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14(12): 1208–1215.
62 Portier G, Elias D, Bouche O, et al. Multicenter randomized
trial of adjuvant fluorouracil and folinic acid compared with surgery alone after resection of colorectal liver metastases: FFCD ACHBTH AURC 9002 trial. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24 (31):4976–4982.
63 Mitry E, Fields A, Bleiberg H, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy
after potentially curative resection of metastases from colo­rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(30):4906–4911.
64 Ychou M, Hohenberger W, Thezenas S, et al. A randomized
phase III study comparing adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid with FOLFIRI in patients following complete resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20(12):1964–1970.
65 Alberts SR, Sargent D, Nair S, et al. Effect of oxaliplatin,
fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without cetuximab on survival among pati ents with resected stage III colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2012; 307(13):1383–1393.
66 Allegra CJ, Yothers G, O’Connell M, et al. Bevacizumab in
stage II–III Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-08 trial. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(3):359–364.
67 De Gramont A, van Cutsem E, Schmoll H, et al. Bevacizumab
plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13(12):1225–1233.
68 De Meijer VE, Kalish B, Puder M, et al. Systematic review and
meta-analysis of steatosis as a risk factor in major hepatic resection. Br J Surg 2010; 97(9):1331–1339.
69 Vauthey JN, Pawlik T, Ribero D, et al. Chemotherapy regi-
men predicts steatohepatitis and an increase in 90-day mortality after surgery for hepatic colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(13):2065–2072.
70 Robinson SM, Wilson C, Burt A, et al. Chemotherapy-asso-
ciated liver injury in patients with colorectal liver
colon cancer: 5-year update of the National
212 Chapter 13
metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19(13):4287–4299.
71 Pawlik TM, Olino K, Gleisner K, et al. Preoperative chemo-
therapy for colorectal liver metastases: impact on hepatic histology and postoperative outcome. J Gastrointest Surg 2007; 11(7):860– 868.
72 Ryan P, Nanji S, Pollett A, et al. Chemotherapy-induced liver
injury in metastatic colorectal cancer: semiquantitative his­tologic analysis of 334 resected liver specimens shows that vascular injury but not steatohepatitis is associated with preoperative chemotherapy. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34 (6):784–791.
73 Rubbia-Brandt L, Audard V, Sartoretti P, et al. Severe hepatic
sinusoidal obstruction associated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2004; 15(3):460–466.
74 Aloia T, Sebagh M, Plasse M, et al. Liver histology and
surgical outcomes after preoperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin in colorectal cancer liver metas­tases. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(31):4983–4990.
75 Klinger M, Eipeldauer S, Hacker S, et al. Bevacizumab
protects against sinusoidal obstruction syndrome and does not increase response rate in neoadjuvant XELOX/FOLFOX therapy of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009; 35(5):515–520.
76 Ribero D, Wang H, Donadon M, et al. Bevacizumab improves
pathologic response and protects against hepatic injury in patients treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases. Cancer 2007; 110(12):2761–2767.
77 Karoui M, Penna C, Amin-Hashem M, et al. Influence of
preoperative chemotherapy on the risk of major hepatec­tomy for colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg 2006; 243 (1):1–7.
78 Kishi Y, Zorzi D, Contreras C, et al. Extended preoperative
chemotherapy does not improve pathologic response and increases postoperative liver insufficiency after hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17(11):2870–2876.
79 Hochster HS, Hart L, Ramanathan R, et al. Safety and efficacy
of oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine regimens with or with­out bevacizumab as first-line treatment of metastatic colo­rectal cancer: results of the TREE Study. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(21):3523–3529.
80 Saif MW, Elfiky A, Salem RR. Gastrointestinal perforation
due to bevacizumab in colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14(6):1860–1869.
81 Kesmodel SB, Ellis L, Lin E, et al. Preoperative bevacizumab
does not significantly
increase postoperative complication rates in patients undergoing hepatic surgery for colorectal cancer liver metastases. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26 (32):5254–5260.
82 Gruenberger B, Tamandl D, Schueller J, et al. Bevacizumab,
capecitabine, and oxaliplatin as neoadjuvant therapy for
patients with potentially curable metastatic colorectal can­cer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(11):1830–1835.
83 Okines A, Puerto O, Cunningham D, et al. Surgery with
curative-intent in patients treated with first-line chemo­therapy plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer First BEAT and the randomised phase-III NO16966 trial. Br J Cancer 2009; 101(7):1033–1038.
84 Tamandl D, Gruenberger B, Klinger M, et al. Liver resection
remains a safe procedure after neoadjuvant chemotherapy including bevacizumab: a case-controlled study. Ann Surg 2010; 252(1):124–130.
85 Van der Pool AE, Marsman HA, Verheij J, et al. Effect of
bevacizumab added preoperatively to oxaliplatin on liver injury and complications after resection of colorectal liver metastases. J Surg Oncol 2012; 106(7):892–897.
86 D’Angelica M, Kornprat P, Gonen M, et al. Lack of evidence
for increased operative morbidity after hepatectomy with perioperative use of bevacizumab: a matched case-control study. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14(2):759–765.
87 Gordon MS, Margolin A, Talpaz M, et al. Phase I safety and
pharmacokinetic study of recombinant human anti-vascu­lar endothelial growth factor in patients with advanc ed cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(3):843–850.
88 Ellis LM, Curley SA, Grothey A. Surgical resection after
downsizing of colorectal liver metastasis in the era of bev­acizumab. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23(22):4853–4855.
89 Welsh FK, Tilney H, Tekkis P, et al. Safe liver resection
following chemotherapy for colorectal metastases is a matter of timing. Br J Cancer 2007; 96(7):1037–1042.
90 Adam R, Pascal G, Castaing D, et al. Tumor progression while
on chemotherapy: a contraindication to liver resection for multiple colorectal metastases? Ann Surg 2004; 240 (6):1052–1061; discussion 1061–1064.
91 Blazer DG 3rd, Kishi Y, Maru D, et al. Pathologic response to
preoperative chemotherapy: a new outcome end point after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(33):5344–5351.
92 Shindoh J, Loyer E, Kopetz S, et al. Optimal morphologic
response to preoperative chemotherapy: an alternate out­come end point before resection of hepatic colorectal metas­tases. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(36):4566–4572.
93 Nash GM, Gimbel M, Shia J, et al. KRAS mutation correlates
accelerated metastatic progression in patients with
with colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17 (2):572–578.
94 Karagkounis G, Torbenson M, Daniel H, et al. Incidence and
prognostic impact of KRAS and BRAF mutation in patients undergoing liver surgery for colorectal metastases. Cancer 2013; 119(23):4137–4144.
95 Vauthey JN, Zimmitti G, Kopetz S, et al. RAS mutation status
predicts survival and patterns of recu rrence in patients undergoing hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg 2013; 258(4):619–626; discussion 626–627.
Oncological management of colorectal liver metastases 213
96 Teng HW, Huang Y, Lin J, et al. BRAF mutation is a prog-
nostic biomarker for colorectal liver metastasectomy. J Surg Oncol 2012; 106(2):123–129.
97 Masi G, Loupakis F, Pollina L, et al. Long-term outcome of
initially unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and iri­notecan (FOLFOXIRI) followed by radical surgery of metas­tases. Ann Surg 2009; 249(3):420–425.
98 Van Cutsem E, Kohne C, Hitre E, et al. Cetuximab and
chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(14):1408–1417.
99 Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Makhson A, et al. Fluorouracil,
leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the fi rst-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(5):663–671.
100 Kopetz S, Hoff P, Morris J, et al. Phase II trial of infusional
fluorouracil, irinotecan, and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: efficacy and circulating angiogenic bio­markers associated with therapeutic resistance. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(3):453– 459.
Videos 1–20 will be of interest to readers of this chapter.
Visit the companion website at:
101 Ho WM, Ma B, Mok T, et al. Liver resection after irinotecan,
5-fluorouracil, and folinic acid for patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases: a multicenter phase II study by the Cancer Therapeutic Research Group. Med Oncol 2005; 22(3):303–312.
102 Pozzo C, Basso M, Cassano A, et al. Neoadjuvant treatment of
unresectable liver disease with irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid in colorectal cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2004; 15(6):933– 939.
103 Wong R, Cunningham D, Barbachano Y, et al. A multicentre
study of capecitabine, oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab as peri­operative treatment of patients with poor-risk colorectal liver-only metastases not selected for upfront resection. Ann Oncol 2011; 22(9):2042–2048.
104 Masi G, Loupakis F, Salvatore L, et al. Bevacizumab with
FOLFOXIRI (irinotecan, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and foli­nate) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11(9):845–852.
www.wiley.com\go\conrad\liver-pancreas-biliary-laparoscopic-surgery
CHAPTER 14
Resection of noncolorectal liver metastases
Universe Leung and William R. Jarnagin
Hepatopancreatobiliary Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
EDITOR COMMENT
In this comprehensive and important chapter, the authors concisely describe the presentation and treatment of noncolorectal liver metastases, providing sections on noncolorectal neuroendocrine and noncolorectal nonneuroendocrine liver metastases. Ten percent to 20% of patients with neuroendocrine tumors present with limited disease, making liver-directed therapy a viable treatment option. Debulking surgery for neuroendocrine liver metastases can allow for symptomatic relief and even prolong survival in some cases. Patients with neuroendocrine liver metastases are frequently good candidates for a minimally invasive resection although greater challenges regarding ultrasound detection of all disease exist. While disease almost always recurs, many patients may be candidates for repeat liver­directed therapy, which might be facilitated by a minimally invasive approach. Only limited evidence exists for resection of noncolorectal nonneuroendocrine liver metastases. While patients with unresectable disease often have dismal prognosis, in highly selected patients surgery may result in a long-term survival rate in the order of 30% at five years. Outcome is dependent on identifying patients with favorable tumor biology, which can be achieved through neoadjuvant chemotherapy and disease stability over a defined period of time. As the authors point out, a multidisciplinary approach is essential for optimal outcome.
Keywords: ablation, breast liver metastases, germ cell liver metastases, gynecological liver metastases, melanoma liver metastases, neuroendocrine liver metastases, noncolorectal liver metastases, sarcoma liver metastases, transplantation and resection of neuro­endocrine liver metastases
14.1 Introduction
With improving patient selection, operative technique, and perioperative care, hepatic resection has evolved into a safe and effective therapeutic option for primary and selected metastatic tumors. The vast majority of experi­ence and data is drawn from colorectal cancer, a common disease where approximately 50% of patients will develop liver metastases [1]. Knowledge gained from modern studies in patients managed in a multidisciplinary setting has enabled 20–30% of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) to undergo resection, with five­year survival rates reaching 35–58% [2]. The advent of more effective systemic therapy has increased the pro­portion of patients eligible for resection and extended overall survival, with recent reports of five-year survival rates as high as 69% and 10-year survival of
Laparoscopic Liver, Pancreas, and Biliary Surgery: Textbook and Illustrated Video Atlas, First Edition. Edited by Claudius Conrad and Brice Gayet. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
214
17–36% [3–7]. Indeed, for patients with resectable CRLM, liver resection is now standard. Furthermore, the selection criteria for surgery continue to expand, with adjuncts such as ablation and portal vein emboliza­tion enabling more and more patients to benefit from potentially curative surgery.
The role of liver resection in the setting of noncolorectal liver metastases (NCLM) is more controversial, due to differing disease biology and lack of robust data. However, the lack of effective alternative therapy for many NCLM and the encouraging results for surgery in CRLM have led to increasing use of hepatic resection in selected NCLM patients. The results are highly variable and depend critically on the primary tumor type and patient selection. In this chapter, we will review the current evidence in support of liver resection for NCLM. Liver metastases from a neuroendocrine primary (NELM) warrants a
Resection of noncolorectal liver metastases 215
discussion on its own as it has emerged as a subgroup of NCLM with a distinct biology, a wider range of treatment options, and a more favorable outcome.
14.2 Neuroendocrine liver metastases
14.2.1 Natural history
Most neuroendocrine tumors (NET) that metastasize to the liver arise from the gastrointestinal tract. These are gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP­NET) and include those of pancreatic (PNET) and gastro­intestinal (GIC, “carcinoid ”) origins. There have been numerous classification systems over the years with con­fusing nomenclature and variable criteria for grading and staging. The European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) proposed a system in 2010, which is now rec­ommended by the World Health Organization, differen­tiating GEP-NETs as low- (G1), intermediate- (G2), and high-grade (G3) tumors based on their mitotic rate or Ki67 proliferation index. Grades 1 and 2, which comprise well-differentiated tumors, have a relatively indolent clinical course, even after metastasis. In contrast, high­grade or poorly differentiated tumors are aggressive, metastasize widely, and are generally not candidates for liver metastasectomy [8].
Overall, 13% of GICs are associated with distant metas­tases at presentation, including 20–30% of small bowel carcinoids [9]. Importantly, small bowel GICs account for 75–90% of carcinoid syndrome, a debilitating condition for many patients. Carcinoid syndrome generally occurs in the presence of liver metastases due to the loss of first­pass metabolism of humoral factors released by the tumor [10].
Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors can produce a vari­ety of peptides including gastrin, insulin, glucagon, and vasoinhibitory peptide. They give rise to a number of clinical syndromes that compromise quality of life and may cause life-threatening hypoglycemia, gastro­intestinal perforation or bleeding, and electrolyte distur­bances. Approximately 60% of PNETs are associated with distant metastases at presentation [11].
Patients with unresected GEP-NET liver metastases, regardless of primary site, have a five-year survival rate ranging from 13% to 54% [12]. House et al. reported a median survival of 17 months in a series of patients with unresectable PNET liver metastases [13]. Approximately
50% of patients with carcinoid syndrome will have val­vular heart disease, which reduces their three-year sur­vival rate to 31%, about half that of patients without heart disease [14]. These patients require a thorough bio­chemical and cardiovascular work-up preoperatively and should be given a somatostatin analogue perioper­atively to prevent carcinoid crisis [15].
14.2.2 Surgery
The majority of patients with NELM have diffuse disease, such that only 10–20% of patients are candidates for resection [16]. Although traditional surgical philosophy dictates that liver resection for metastasis should be attempted only if all disease can be removed, the unique biology of NELM appears to lend itself to cytoreductive surgery, defined as removal of >90% of disease [17]. NELMs are typically slow growing so even if surgery is not curative, prolonged survival may be achieved. As with CRLM, venous drainage of GEP-NETs into the liver via the portal vein indicates that metastatic spread may be rela­tively localized; NELMs tend not to encase major vessels or bile ducts, and therefore may be amenable to limited sacrifice of hepatic parenchyma. Furthermore, alterna­tive medical therapies have shown limited efficacy in controlling disease progression, and endocrine symptoms are most effectively palliated by surgical intervention.
Patients are considered surgical candidates if their pri­mary and regional disease is resectable or already resected, the disease is well differentiated, and surgery can be done with acceptable morbidity and mortality risks. Complete resection of the liver disease should be the aim, but palliative cytoreductive surgery has also been advocated [18]. The presence of right heart failure from significant valvular heart disease is a contraindication to surgery, and consideration should be given to valve replacement followed by treatment of the liver dis­ease [19]. The role of surgery in asymptomatic, non­hormonally active disease, particularly in patients with large-volume disease, is controversial and should be individualized.
Liver resection is effective in controlling symptoms in patients with hormonally active tumors. Que et al. from the Mayo Clinic described the first large series of NELM with data from 74 patients who underwent resection with either curative or palliative intent, and found an overall symptomatic control rate of 90% and a mean duration of response of 19.3 months [20]. Seven out of 23 (30%) symptomatic patients treated with curative intent
216 Chapter 14
developed recurrent symptoms after a mean of
20.4 months, while 26 of 46 (57%) symptomatic patients treated with palliative intent developed recurrent symp­toms after a mean of 11.3 months. The overall survival rate at 4 years was 73% and did not differ between the two groups. The authors concluded that even though cytoreduction is associated with shorter durable sympto­matic response, overall survival is unchanged, therefore lending support to a cytoreductive approach even if complete resection is not possible.
Although there are no published studies that directly compare surgery with supportive care, a number of reports have demonstrated survival rates of 60–70% with surgery, compared to <50% without surgery histor­ically. Sarmiento et al. published the extended Mayo Clinic experience in 2003 to include a total of 170 patients (44% curative, 56% palliative), and found overall five­and 10-year survival rates of 61% and 35%, respec­tively [21]. The recurrence rates were high: 84% at five years and 94% at 10 years. While suggestive of a benefit from resection, the selection bias associated with these retrospective studies prevents any definitive con­clusions in this regard.
The largest published series to date came from an analysis by Mayo et al. of data from 339 patients at multiple centers in the USA and Europe [22]. Approxi­mately 30–50% of resections were palliative, and 16% of resected patients had extrahepatic disease. A significant number of patients also underwent repeated surgery to treat recurrence. Recurrence rates were 94% at five years and 99% at 10 years; neither margin status (R0/R1 versus R2) nor presence of extrahepatic disease was associated with recurrence, reflecting the palliative nature of treat­ment regardless of intent. The overall survival rates from time of first liver resection were 74% at five years and 51% at 10 years (Figure 14.1). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with poorer survival were nonfunction­ing NET, synchronous disease, and extrahepatic disease. Interestingly, patients with a functioning NET and R0/R1 resection fared better than those who underwent R2 resection, but for nonfunctioning NETs there was no survival difference regardless of whether gross disease was left behind.
Saxena et al. performed a systematic review of 29 studies with 1400 patients who underwent liver resection for NELM [23]. Overall, 65% of the operations were performed with curative intent and 35% were palliative. In the 16 studies that reported symptom response, 95% of
Figure 14.1 Overall survival for hepatic neuroendocrine
metastasis from time of first hepatic resection. Source: Mayo et al. [22]. Reproduced with permission of Springer.
patients experienced relief, including 57% who had com­plete response. Median rates of overall survival were
70.5% at five years and 42% at 10 years, but correspond­ing rates of progression-free survival were only 29% and 1%. The median perioperative mortality rate was 0% (range 0–9%), and median morbidity rate was 23% (range 3–45%). Table 14.1 summarizes recent studies reporting outcomes after surgery for NELM.
Table 14.1 Selected contemporary studies of liver resection for
neuroendocrine metastases.
Study n Symptom
control
Sarmiento 2003 [21] 170 96% 61% Osborne 2006 [73] 61 92% 43 months
Hibi 2007 [74] 21 92% 41% Eriksson 2008 [75] 42 70% 80% Landry 2008 [76] 39 NR 75% Kianmanesh 2008 [77] 41 NR 79% Chambers 2008 [78] 30 75% 74% Frilling 2009 [79] 23 NR 100% Scigliano 2009 [80] 38 NR 79% Mayo 2010 [22] 339 NR 74% Glazer 2010 [81] 172 NR 77% Saxena 2011 [82] 74 NR 63% Gaujoux 2012 [83] 36 NR 69%
5OS, five-year overall survival; NR, not reported.
5OS
(median)
Resection of noncolorectal liver metastases 217
14.2.3 Laparoscopic resection
There is a paucity of data pertaining to laparoscopic resection for NELM specifically; hence, no specific rec­ommendations can be made, although the advantages and disadvantages, perioperative care, and operative technique can be extrapolated from experience with liver resection for other indications [24]. Selection of NELM patients for laparoscopic resection is similar to that for hepatocellular carcinoma or CRLM, namely, based on size, number, and location of the metastases. In general terms, small (<5 cm) or exophytic tumors in the periph­eral and anterolateral parts of the liver, away from major pedicles and veins, are suitable for resection [25]. Kandil et al. reported a single-institution retrospective compari­son of 21 open and 15 laparoscopic resections of NELM, and found that the laparoscopic group had shorter oper­ating times (2.7 versus 5.4 h), less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay (3.2 versus 7.5 days) [26]. Perioperative morbidity, efficacy of symptom relief, surgical margins, and three-year survival rates were comparable. However, laparoscopic major hepatectomies are technically demanding procedures and considerable experience with open resection and advanced laparoscopic tech­niques are required to achieve good outcomes.
14.2.4 Nonresectional therapy
A full description of the role of nonresectional manage­ment of NELM is beyond the scope of this chapter so it will be mentioned only briefly for completeness.
14.2.4.1 Ablation and embolization
In recent years, ablation (radiofrequency and microwave) has gained popularity for the treatment of small CRLM and hepatocellular carcinoma due to its relative safety, possibility of percutaneous or laparoscopic approach, and ability to spare parenchyma [27–29]. Use of ablation has been extended to NELM, but there are limited data on its efficacy. Given the multifocal and bulky nature of NELM, ablation is infrequently applicable.
Akyildiz et al. reported a series of 89 patients who under-
went 119 laparoscopic radiofrequency ablations (LRFA) for NELMs, which were symptomatic or progressive [30]. The mean number of lesions treated at first session was six, and mean tumor size was 3.6 cm. Of the patients who were symptomatic, 97% reported symptomatic relief at one week, and the median duration of symptom control was 14 months. Morbidity rate was 6% and 30-day mortality
rate was 1%. After a median follow-up of 30 months, 22% of patients had developed recurrence (6.3% per lesion). Median survival after LRFA was six years, with a five-year survival rate of 57%.
Due to the hypervascular nature of NELMs, hepatic artery embolization with particles or chemotherapeutic agents has been used for unresectable disease. It is effec­tive for symptom treatment, and series have shown a median survival of 18–56 months and a five-year survival rate of up to 30% [31].
14.2.4.2 Transplantation
Liver transplantation has been used in some centers to treat NELM patients with intrahepatic disease that is too extensive for resection and with no extrahepatic disease, with five-year survival rates of 30–60% reported. Maz­zaferro et al. [32] suggested the following selection criteria for liver transplantation, extrapolated from the Milan Criteria [33] used for patients with hepatocellular carci­noma: primary tumor drained by the portal system, liver parenchymal involvement 50%, age 55 years, stable disease for at least six months, and exclusion of high­grade tumors. More recently, some authors have advo­cated a further expanded set of criteria to enable more patients to benefit from potentially curative transplanta­tion. The largest series to date compiled data from 35 cen­ters in Europe over 27 years with a total of 213 patients. Le Treut et al. reported a three-month mortality rate of 10%, median overall survival of 67 months, and five-year overall and disease-free survival rates of 52% and 30%, respectively [34].
14.2.4.3 Medical treatment
A number of medical treatments are available for NELM. Somatostatin analogues such as octreotide have been a mainstay for palliation of symptoms and are effective in >60% of patients. They can also temporarily stabilize tumors in 36–70% of patients with a median duration of 12 months [35,36]. α-Interferon can achieve similar results, particularly with low-proliferation tumors. Sys­temic therapy, such as streptozotocin-based regimens and cisplatin/etoposide combinations, has limited efficacy with response rates ranging from 10% in low-grade tumors to >50% in high-grade tumors. Conventional external beam radiotherapy is generally ineffective for NELM. Recently, there has been interest in peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) using radioactive yttrium and lutetium attached to octreotide-based compounds (DOTATOC/
218 Chapter 14
DOTATATE), with early results demonstrating tumor response rates of 20–40% [37,38].
14.2.5 Summary
Neuroendocrine liver metastases tend to be diffuse on presentation, but in 10–20% of patients the disease is more limited, and surgery with or without ablation is an increasingly accepted treatment. Resection with curative intent is ideal, but cytoreduction by removing >90% of disease appears to yield comparable results. Although there is no conclusive evidence for a survival advantage, multiple series have established good long-term survival rates after resection, of the order of 40–80% at five years, compared to historical series showing a five-year survival of around 30% with medical treatment only. In addition, for symptomatic patients, resection offers effective short­to medium-term relief. As with other malignancies of the liver, NELMs are amenable to laparoscopic resection, ablation, and regional and systemic therapies. Although the disease almost always recurs, many patients may be candidates for further liver-directed therapy, and pro­longed survival can be achieved.
14.3 Noncolorectal, nonneuroendocrine liver metastases
Historically, patients with noncolorectal, nonneuroendo­crine liver metastases (NCNN) were considered to have disseminated disease and were treated nonoperatively. Unlike CRLM and NELM, the majority of NCNNs do not directly drain via the portal vein into the liver, and the presence of liver metastases was taken as evidence of widespread systemic disease. The oncological justification of liver resection is therefore questionable. However, such patients are a heterogeneous group with variable outcomes, and a minority will have more favorable can­cer biology, which translates to prolonged survival and, uncommonly, even cure after resection of liver metasta­ses. The strength and breadth of evidence are not as strong as those for CRLM or NELM, but the underlying histology has emerged as a major determinant of long-term outcomes.
14.3.1 Studies with multiple tumor types
In most centers, experience with individual tumor types is very limited, and hence many reports combine tumor
types to enable meaningful analysis. Studies examining the outcome of surgically treated NCNNs generally have the limitations of being retrospective, uncontrolled, and having heterogeneous populations, particularly with regard to the tumor type and use of adjuvant therapies. Table 14.2 summarizes recent studies reporting outcomes after surgery for NCNN. Overall five-year survival is approximately 25–40%, representing a highly selected group with a better prognosis. The predominant tumor types are breast, genitourinary, and sarcoma, reflecting the selection of tumors with more favorable biology. Resection for other types, particularly gastrointestinal metastases, is rarely associated with long-term survival.
Weitz et al. from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Center (MSKCC) reported a series of 141 patients with resected NCNNs and found a median survival of 35 months, and a three-year cancer-specific survival rate of 57% [39]. At the end of the study there were 24 actual five-year survivors. The predominant tumor types were breast (20%), reproductive tract (28%), and melanoma (12%). Factors associated with better survival were disease-free interval >24 months, primary tumor type (reproductive tract fared best), and margin status.
The largest study to date was performed by Adam et al.,
who analyzed data from 1452 patients from 41 cen­ters [40]. The most common tumor types were breast (32%), gastrointestinal (16%), genitourinary (14%), and melanoma (10%). Sixty-day mortality was 2.3%, and major complications occurred in 21.5% of patients. Over­all survival rates at five and 10 years were 36% and 23%, respectively, with a median survival of 35 months, and 46 actual 10-year survivors (Figure 14.2). Multivariate anal­ysis showed that the following factors were associated with poorer survival: age >60, nonbreast origin or mela­noma or squamous histology, disease-free interval <12 months, extrahepatic disease, R2 resection, and major hepatectomy. The authors proposed a scoring sys­tem using these factors to stratify patients into low-, mid-, and high-risk groups.
O’Rourke et al. reported a series of 114 patients from
Australia and the United Kingdom and found a five-year overall survival rate of 39% and a median survival of 42 months [41]. In this study, size of the largest liver metastases (>5 cm) was associated with a >50% reduc­tion in disease-free and overall survival. More recently, Groeschl et al. reported a series of 420 patients from four American centers [42]. Predominant tumor types were breast (27%), sarcoma (23%), and genitourinary (22%).