Evidence for a synchronous operative approach in the treatment of colorectal cancer with hepatic metastases: A case matched study
Introduction
Synchronous colon cancer with liver metastases presents a unique opportunity to deal simultaneously with both the primary and secondary disease. With at least 25% of patients with colorectal cancer presenting with liver metastases at time of initial diagnosis, there is potential to perform combined hepatic and colonic resections, as well as local ablative techniques at the same laparotomy.1 This synchronous operative approach offers the advantage to the patient of a single laparotomy and hospital stay, allowing early instigation of aggressive adjuvant therapy when indicated. In addition, one hospital stay is likely to be more cost effective than the traditional staged approach with up to twelve weeks, the usual interval, between colonic resection and hepatic resection.
Despite these potential advantages, the staged approach remains the standard policy in most colorectal units in the United Kingdom. This is primarily based on evidence from earlier studies that suggested a significantly higher morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing synchronous resections compared to a staged approach.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Indeed, one study reported mortality as high as 17% in patients undergoing synchronous resections.7
The quality of hepatic surgery has improved greatly over the last two decades with advances in surgical and anaesthetic techniques, as well as radiological imaging, leading to improved short and long term outcomes.8, 9, 10, 11 Furthermore, with the introduction of radiofrequency (RF) ablation12, 13, 14 and other ablative techniques, the traditional exclusion criteria of bilobar disease and multiple hepatic metastases are no longer absolute contraindications to performing partial hepatectomy. As a result, attention has turned again to the role of synchronous resections, where caution is still advised especially if major colonic or hepatic surgery is being considered.15, 16
It has been the policy in this small volume surgical department to pursue a synchronous operative approach in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. To determine short and long term patient outcomes, this study cased matched patients undergoing synchronous procedures to patients undergoing staged procedures.
Section snippets
Patients
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the local research and ethics committee. Thirty two consecutive patients with colorectal cancer and hepatic metastases that underwent a synchronous operative approach (synchronous group) were individually case matched with patients that had undergone a staged approach (staged group). The patients in the staged group had their colonic resection performed at another hospital and were subsequently referred to this unit for treatment of their
Results
There were no statistical differences found between the synchronous and staged groups for age, sex and ASA grade. In addition, there were no differences in TNM staging and Clinical Risk Score between the two groups with similar numbers of patients having undergone chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy (Table 1). Seventy–eight percent of colorectal operations were classified at major resections with 22% major hepatic resections performed (Table 2). RF ablation was performed in six patients (five
Discussion
The evidence for performing staged colonic and hepatic resections comes from several earlier studies that suggested an associated greater blood loss, higher morbidity and higher mortality with synchronous surgery.2, 3, 4, 6 However, the majority of these studies were performed before the time frame of significant improvements in patient outcomes with hepatic resection. In addition, it is difficult to evaluate these early studies as there was no accepted definition of the term synchronous
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study provides supporting evidence for the role of synchronous procedures in patients with colorectal liver metastases confirming that major colorectal resections can be safely performed in tandem with hepatic resections to provide effective oncological surgery.
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest in this manuscript.
Funding
No funding was received for this study.
References (29)
- et al.
Surgical management of patients with primary operable colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases
American Journal of Surgery
(1978) - et al.
Perioperative outcomes of major hepatic resections under low central venous pressure anesthesia: blood loss, blood transfusion, and the risk of postoperative renal dysfunction
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
(1998) - et al.
Radiofrequency ablation extends the scope of surgery in colorectal liver metastases
European Journal of Surgical Oncology
(2003) - et al.
Selective continuous vascular occlusion and perioperative fluid restriction in partial hepatectomy. Outcomes in 101 consecutive patients
European Journal of Surgical Oncology
(2007) - et al.
The extent of resection influences outcome following hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases
European Journal of Surgical Oncology
(2004) - et al.
The renal sequelae of a triphasic approach to blood loss reduction during hepatic resection
European Journal of Surgical Oncology
(2006) - et al.
Simultaneous liver and colorectal resections are safe for synchronous colorectal liver metastases
Journal of American College of Surgeons
(2003) - et al.
Resection and embolization in the management of secondary hepatic tumors
World Journal of Surgery
(1982) - et al.
Resection of liver metastases in colorectal cancer- competiive analysis of treatment results in synchronous versus metachronous metastases
European Journal of Surgical Oncology
(1990) - et al.
Hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer
American Surgeon
(1997)
Hepatectomy for liver metastases
British Journal of Surgery
Surgical treatment of synchronous hepatic metastases of colorectal cancers. Simultaneous or delayed resection?
Annales de Chirurgie
Survival after resection of multiple bilobar hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma
Annals of Surgery
One hundred consecutive hepatic resections. Blood loss, transfusion, and operative technique
Archives of Surgery
Cited by (35)
Surgical treatment of stage IV colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
2020, European Journal of Surgical OncologyCitation Excerpt :Throughout the years many different definitions have been used to describe synchronous liver metastases. Most commonly synchronous metastases were reported as LM diagnosed at the time of diagnosis of the primary tumor [20,25,34,41,57,58], diagnosed preoperatively [22,28,30,33,37,50,63], diagnosed before or during the primary tumor surgery [17,24,29,32,39,42,52–55,61,62]. Others defined synchronicity as LM diagnosed one year before to three months after the diagnosis of the primary tumor [38], discovered before or at the time of diagnosis of the primary tumor [18], before initiation of treatment [31], diagnosed within 30 [51] or 90 days of the diagnosis of the primary tumor [6], diagnosed within 12 months after diagnosis of the primary tumor and before any surgical intervention [21], diagnosed before, during surgery of within 6 [64] or 12 months after primary tumor resection [60].
Population level outcomes and costs of single stage colon and liver resection versus conventional two-stage approach for the resection of metastatic colorectal cancer
2019, HPBCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, using propensity score matching, we were able to compare relative outcomes between the two patient groups. In a recently published systematic review, Ali and colleagues reported that the occurrence of major complications and mortality after CR + LR ranged from 18 to 30% and 0.0–3.5%, respectively.14 Consistent with these findings, in the current study, postoperative morbidity and mortality following CR + LR were 38.5% and 3.1%, respectively.
Simultaneous versus delayed hepatectomy for synchronous colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2018, HPBCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, if simultaneous resection is safe, it could improve the patient experience, by reducing the time to definitive surgical control of all disease, reducing the total number of interventions and reducing the costs of hospital treatment. It may also reduce the time to adjuvant chemotherapy.20,30,39 However, the optimal strategy for the treatment of synchronous CRLM is unclear, as there are no randomised trials in this setting.
Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of simultaneous resection of primary colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastases
2014, Surgery (United States)Citation Excerpt :In these studies, the liver metastatic lesions tended to be more severe in the staged resection group than in the simultaneous resection group. In a case-matched study, Moug et al29 demonstrated that there was no difference in OS and RFS between patients who underwent simultaneous resection and those who underwent staged resections; therefore, no clear benefit from intermittent resection was confirmed. Capussotti et al22 suggested that patients with SLM from colorectal cancer with a T4 primary colorectal cancer, those with liver metastasis with infiltration of nearby structures, and, particularly, those with more than three hepatic nodules should receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Outcomes of simultaneous resections for patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases
2013, European Journal of Surgical OncologyA meta-analysis comparing simultaneous versus delayed resections in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases
2013, Surgical OncologyCitation Excerpt :The results of the sensitivity analysis are summarized in Table 4. The sensitivity analysis included ten studies ([6,10,22–29]) that scored more than seven stars on the modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, ten studies ([10,22,28–35]) that were published after the year 2007, and twelve studies ([8,22,24–27,31,33,34,36,37]) with a total number of patients greater than 50 in the simultaneous resection group. Analysis of the high-quality studies did not show any significant differences between the two groups in terms of: blood loss or the duration of surgery.