同步性结直肠癌肝转移患者先切肝与较差的无复发生存率有关:重新考虑原发癌的重要性。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Diseases of the Colon & Rectum Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1097/dcr.0000000000003518
Thomas L Sutton,Ranish K Patel,Katherine M Watson,Ivy H Gardner,Daniel O Herzig,V Liana Tsikitis,Emerson Y Chen,Skye C Mayo
{"title":"同步性结直肠癌肝转移患者先切肝与较差的无复发生存率有关:重新考虑原发癌的重要性。","authors":"Thomas L Sutton,Ranish K Patel,Katherine M Watson,Ivy H Gardner,Daniel O Herzig,V Liana Tsikitis,Emerson Y Chen,Skye C Mayo","doi":"10.1097/dcr.0000000000003518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nSynchronous colorectal liver metastases may be managed with primary-first, simultaneous, or liver-first resection. Relative oncologic outcomes based upon treatment sequencing are understudied.\r\n\r\nOBJECTIVE\r\nThis study aimed to assess oncologic survival outcomes in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases managed with each of the three treatment strategies, with respect to early or delayed removal of the primary tumor.\r\n\r\nDESIGN\r\nRetrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database, with 1:1 propensity-matching of relevant clinicopathologic variables comparing liver-first to primary-first/simultaneous approaches.\r\n\r\nSETTINGS\r\nSingle-institution, tertiary cancer center.\r\n\r\nPATIENTS\r\nPatients undergoing curative-intent hepatectomy for synchronous colorectal liver metastases from 2003-2019.\r\n\r\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\r\nOverall and recurrence-free survival.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nOf 151 patients, 23% (n = 35) had liver-first and 77% (n = 116; primary-first = 93 and simultaneous = 23) had primary-first/simultaneous approaches. Median follow-up was 45 months. Recurrence-free survival was worse for liver-first versus primary-first/simultaneous groups (median 12 versus 16 months, p = 0.02), driven by three-year extrahepatic recurrence-free survival of 19%, 58%, and 50% for liver-first, primary-first, and simultaneous groups, respectively. Three-year overall survival was not significantly different at 86%, 79%, and 86%, respectively. Oncologic outcomes did not significantly differ between primary-first and simultaneous groups (all p > 0.4). Matching yielded 34 clinicopathologically similar patients per group (liver-first = 34, primary-first = 28/simultaneous = 6). The liver-first approach was associated with shorter recurrence-free survival (median 12 versus 23 months, p = 0.004), driven by extrahepatic recurrence-free survival (3-year: 20% versus 55%, p = 0.04). Overall survival was not significantly different at 3-years (79% versus 80%, p = 0.95) or 5-years (59% versus 59%, p > 0.99).\r\n\r\nLIMITATIONS\r\nThis study has a retrospective design and limited sample size.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nA liver-first approach is associated with worse recurrence free-survival compared to primary-first or simultaneous resection, driven by extrahepatic recurrence. Prospective study of whether oncologic risk is associated with leaving the primary in situ is needed. Multidisciplinary treatment sequencing and enhanced postoperative surveillance for patients receiving liver-first resection is recommended. See Video Abstract.","PeriodicalId":11299,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liver-First Resection in Patients With Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases Is Associated with Inferior Recurrence-Free Survival: Reconsidering the Importance of the Primary Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas L Sutton,Ranish K Patel,Katherine M Watson,Ivy H Gardner,Daniel O Herzig,V Liana Tsikitis,Emerson Y Chen,Skye C Mayo\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/dcr.0000000000003518\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nSynchronous colorectal liver metastases may be managed with primary-first, simultaneous, or liver-first resection. Relative oncologic outcomes based upon treatment sequencing are understudied.\\r\\n\\r\\nOBJECTIVE\\r\\nThis study aimed to assess oncologic survival outcomes in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases managed with each of the three treatment strategies, with respect to early or delayed removal of the primary tumor.\\r\\n\\r\\nDESIGN\\r\\nRetrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database, with 1:1 propensity-matching of relevant clinicopathologic variables comparing liver-first to primary-first/simultaneous approaches.\\r\\n\\r\\nSETTINGS\\r\\nSingle-institution, tertiary cancer center.\\r\\n\\r\\nPATIENTS\\r\\nPatients undergoing curative-intent hepatectomy for synchronous colorectal liver metastases from 2003-2019.\\r\\n\\r\\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\\r\\nOverall and recurrence-free survival.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nOf 151 patients, 23% (n = 35) had liver-first and 77% (n = 116; primary-first = 93 and simultaneous = 23) had primary-first/simultaneous approaches. Median follow-up was 45 months. Recurrence-free survival was worse for liver-first versus primary-first/simultaneous groups (median 12 versus 16 months, p = 0.02), driven by three-year extrahepatic recurrence-free survival of 19%, 58%, and 50% for liver-first, primary-first, and simultaneous groups, respectively. Three-year overall survival was not significantly different at 86%, 79%, and 86%, respectively. Oncologic outcomes did not significantly differ between primary-first and simultaneous groups (all p > 0.4). Matching yielded 34 clinicopathologically similar patients per group (liver-first = 34, primary-first = 28/simultaneous = 6). The liver-first approach was associated with shorter recurrence-free survival (median 12 versus 23 months, p = 0.004), driven by extrahepatic recurrence-free survival (3-year: 20% versus 55%, p = 0.04). Overall survival was not significantly different at 3-years (79% versus 80%, p = 0.95) or 5-years (59% versus 59%, p > 0.99).\\r\\n\\r\\nLIMITATIONS\\r\\nThis study has a retrospective design and limited sample size.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nA liver-first approach is associated with worse recurrence free-survival compared to primary-first or simultaneous resection, driven by extrahepatic recurrence. Prospective study of whether oncologic risk is associated with leaving the primary in situ is needed. Multidisciplinary treatment sequencing and enhanced postoperative surveillance for patients receiving liver-first resection is recommended. See Video Abstract.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000003518\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000003518","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景同步性结直肠肝转移可采用原发灶先切除、同时切除或肝脏先切除术。本研究旨在评估同步性结直肠肝转移患者在三种治疗策略中的肿瘤生存率,以及原发肿瘤的早期或延迟切除。主要结局指标总生存期和无复发生存期。结果在151名患者中,23%(n=35)采用肝脏先露术,77%(n=116;原发先露=93,同期=23)采用原发先露/同期术。中位随访时间为45个月。肝脏先露组与原发先露/同期组相比,无复发生存期更短(中位 12 个月对 16 个月,P = 0.02),肝脏先露组、原发先露组和同期组的三年肝外无复发生存期分别为 19%、58% 和 50%。三年总生存率分别为86%、79%和86%,无明显差异。原发第一组和同时发生组的肿瘤学结果无明显差异(均 p > 0.4)。匹配结果显示,每组有34名临床病理相似的患者(肝脏在先=34,原发在先=28/同期=6)。在肝外无复发生存期(3 年:20% 对 55%,P = 0.04)的推动下,肝脏先入路与较短的无复发生存期(中位 12 个月对 23 个月,P = 0.004)相关。本研究采用回顾性设计,样本量有限。结论与原发灶先切除术或同时切除术相比,肝脏先切除术的无复发生存率更低,其原因在于肝外复发。需要对原发灶留在原位是否会带来肿瘤风险进行前瞻性研究。建议对接受先肝切除术的患者进行多学科治疗排序并加强术后监测。参见视频摘要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Liver-First Resection in Patients With Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases Is Associated with Inferior Recurrence-Free Survival: Reconsidering the Importance of the Primary Cancer.
BACKGROUND Synchronous colorectal liver metastases may be managed with primary-first, simultaneous, or liver-first resection. Relative oncologic outcomes based upon treatment sequencing are understudied. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess oncologic survival outcomes in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases managed with each of the three treatment strategies, with respect to early or delayed removal of the primary tumor. DESIGN Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database, with 1:1 propensity-matching of relevant clinicopathologic variables comparing liver-first to primary-first/simultaneous approaches. SETTINGS Single-institution, tertiary cancer center. PATIENTS Patients undergoing curative-intent hepatectomy for synchronous colorectal liver metastases from 2003-2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Overall and recurrence-free survival. RESULTS Of 151 patients, 23% (n = 35) had liver-first and 77% (n = 116; primary-first = 93 and simultaneous = 23) had primary-first/simultaneous approaches. Median follow-up was 45 months. Recurrence-free survival was worse for liver-first versus primary-first/simultaneous groups (median 12 versus 16 months, p = 0.02), driven by three-year extrahepatic recurrence-free survival of 19%, 58%, and 50% for liver-first, primary-first, and simultaneous groups, respectively. Three-year overall survival was not significantly different at 86%, 79%, and 86%, respectively. Oncologic outcomes did not significantly differ between primary-first and simultaneous groups (all p > 0.4). Matching yielded 34 clinicopathologically similar patients per group (liver-first = 34, primary-first = 28/simultaneous = 6). The liver-first approach was associated with shorter recurrence-free survival (median 12 versus 23 months, p = 0.004), driven by extrahepatic recurrence-free survival (3-year: 20% versus 55%, p = 0.04). Overall survival was not significantly different at 3-years (79% versus 80%, p = 0.95) or 5-years (59% versus 59%, p > 0.99). LIMITATIONS This study has a retrospective design and limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS A liver-first approach is associated with worse recurrence free-survival compared to primary-first or simultaneous resection, driven by extrahepatic recurrence. Prospective study of whether oncologic risk is associated with leaving the primary in situ is needed. Multidisciplinary treatment sequencing and enhanced postoperative surveillance for patients receiving liver-first resection is recommended. See Video Abstract.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
572
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (DCR) is the official journal of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) dedicated to advancing the knowledge of intestinal disorders by providing a forum for communication amongst their members. The journal features timely editorials, original contributions and technical notes.
期刊最新文献
Classification for Reoperative Ileal Pouch Surgery. Bowel Dysfunction After Colon Cancer Surgery: A Prospective, Longitudinal, Multicenter Study. Combined Comprehensive Risk Score of the Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress and C-Reactive Protein-to-Albumin Ratio Is a Strong Prognostic Indicator of Long-term Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer. Research Perspective on: Association Between Cross-Stapling Technique in Mechanical Colorectal Anastomosis and Short-term Outcomes. Association Between Cross-Stapling Technique in Mechanical Colorectal Anastomosis and Short-term Outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1