Skip to main content
Log in

Surgery Versus Intra-arterial Therapy for Neuroendocrine Liver Metastasis: A Multicenter International Analysis

  • Hepatobiliary Tumors
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Management of patients with neuroendocrine liver metastasis (NELM) remains controversial. We sought to examine the relative efficacy of surgical management versus intra-arterial therapy (IAT) for NELM and determine factors predictive of survival.

Methods

A total of 753 patients who had surgery (n = 339) or IAT (n = 414) for NELM from 1985 to 2010 were identified from nine hepatobiliary centers. Clinicopathologic data were assessed with regression modeling and propensity score matching.

Results

Most patients had a pancreatic (32%) or a small bowel (27%) primary tumor; 47% had a hormonally active tumor. There were statistically significant differences in characteristics between surgery versus IAT groups (hormonally active tumors: 28 vs. 48%; hepatic tumor burden >25%: 52% vs. 76%) (all P < 0.001). Among surgical patients, most underwent hepatic resection alone without ablation (78%). The median number of IAT treatments was 1 (range, 1–4). Median and 5-year survival of patients treated with surgery was 123 months and 74% vs. 34 months and 30% for IAT (P < 0.001). In the propensity-adjusted multivariate Cox model, asymptomatic disease (hazard ratio 2.6) was strongly associated with worse outcome (P = 0.001). Although surgical management provided a survival benefit over IAT among symptomatic patients with >25% hepatic tumor involvement, there was no difference in long-term outcome after surgery versus IAT among asymptomatic patients (P = 0.78).

Conclusions

Asymptomatic patients with a large (>25%) burden of liver disease benefited least from surgical management and IAT may be a more appropriate treatment strategy. Surgical management of NELM should be reserved for patients with low-volume disease or for those patients with symptomatic high-volume disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Modlin IM, Lye KD, Kidd M. A 5-decade analysis of 13,715 carcinoid tumors. Cancer. 2003;97:934–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chamberlain RS, Canes D, Brown KT, et al. Hepatic neuroendocrine metastases: does intervention alter outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:432–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen H, Hardacre JM, Uzar A, et al. Isolated liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumors: does resection prolong survival? J Am Coll Surg. 1998;187:88–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Knox CD, Anderson CD, Lamps LW, et al. Long-term survival after resection for primary hepatic carcinoid tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:1171–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nave H, Mossinger E, Feist H, et al. Surgery as primary treatment in patients with liver metastases from carcinoid tumors: a retrospective, unicentric study over 13 years. Surgery. 2001;129:170–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sarmiento JM, Heywood G, Rubin J, et al. Surgical treatment of neuroendocrine metastases to the liver: a plea for resection to increase survival. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:29–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. O’Toole D, Hentic O, Corcos O, et al. Chemotherapy for gastro-enteropancreatic endocrine tumours. Neuroendocrinology. 2004;80(Suppl 1):79–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Engstrom PF, Lavin PT, Moertel CG, et al. Streptozocin plus fluorouracil versus doxorubicin therapy for metastatic carcinoid tumor. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2:1255–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Scigliano S, Lebtahi R, Maire F, et al. Clinical and imaging follow-up after exhaustive liver resection of endocrine metastases: a 15-year monocentric experience. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2009;16:977–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Touzios JG, Kiely JM, Pitt SC, et al. Neuroendocrine hepatic metastases: does aggressive management improve survival? Ann Surg. 2005;241:776–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mayo SC, de Jong MC, Pulitano C, et al. Surgical management of hepatic neuroendocrine tumor metastasis: results from an international multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3129–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ho AS, Picus J, Darcy MD, et al. Long-term outcome after chemoembolization and embolization of hepatic metastatic lesions from neuroendocrine tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1201–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liapi E, Geschwind JF, Vossen JA, et al. Functional MRI evaluation of tumor response in patients with neuroendocrine hepatic metastasis treated with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:67–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liapi E, Georgiades CC, Hong K, et al. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization: current technique and future promise. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;10:2–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Saxena A, Chua TC, Bester L, et al. Factors predicting response and survival after yttrium-90 radioembolization of unresectable neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases: a critical appraisal of 48 cases. Ann Surg. 2010;251:910–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gupta S, Yao JC, Ahrar K, et al. Hepatic artery embolization and chemoembolization for treatment of patients with metastatic carcinoid tumors: the M. D. Anderson experience. Cancer J. 2003;9:261–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Roche A, Girish BV, de Baere T, et al. Trans-catheter arterial chemoembolization as first-line treatment for hepatic metastases from endocrine tumors. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:136–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eriksson BK, Larsson EG, Skogseid BM, et al. Liver embolizations of patients with malignant neuroendocrine gastrointestinal tumors. Cancer. 1998;83:2293–301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gupta S, Johnson MM, Murthy R, et al. Hepatic arterial embolization and chemoembolization for the treatment of patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: variables affecting response rates and survival. Cancer. 2005;104:1590–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Strasberg SM. Nomenclature of hepatic anatomy and resections: a review of the Brisbane 2000 system. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2005;12:351–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:1031–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cox D. Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B. 1972;34:187–220.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(82):757–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. D’Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998;17:2265–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med. 2007;26:20–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gleisner AL, Choti MA, Assumpcao L, et al. Colorectal liver metastases: recurrence and survival following hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, and combined resection-radiofrequency ablation. Arch Surg. 2008;143:1204–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Osborne DA, Zervos EE, Strosberg J, et al. Improved outcome with cytoreduction versus embolization for symptomatic hepatic metastases of carcinoid and neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:572–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, et al. Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol. 2001;35:421–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M, et al. Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer. 2009;115:616–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy M. Pawlik MD, MPH.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mayo, S.C., de Jong, M.C., Bloomston, M. et al. Surgery Versus Intra-arterial Therapy for Neuroendocrine Liver Metastasis: A Multicenter International Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 18, 3657–3665 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1832-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1832-y

Keywords

Navigation