Добавил:
Sekretar
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
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%).
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
