Parenchymal-Sparing Versus Anatomic Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: a Systematic Review
- 1.1k Downloads
Colorectal liver metastases develop in 50% of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Surgical resection for colorectal liver metastasis typically involves either anatomical resection (AR) or parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH). The objective of the current study was to analyze data on parenchymal versus non-parenchymal-sparing hepatic resections for CLM.
A systematic review of the literature regarding parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy was performed. MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for publications containing the following medical subject headings (MeSH): “Colorectal Neoplasms,” “Neoplasm Metastasis,” “Liver Neoplasms” and “Hepatectomy”. Besides, the following keywords were used to complete the literature search: “Hepatectomy,” “liver resection,” “hepatic resection,” “anatomic/anatomical,” “nonanatomic/ nonanatomical,” “major,” “minor,” “limited,” “wedge,” “CRLM/CLM,” and “colorectal liver metastasis.” Data was reviewed, aggregated, and analyzed.
Two thousand five hundred five patients included in 12 studies who underwent either PSH (n = 1087 patients) or AR (n = 1418 patients) were identified. Most patients had a primary tumor that originated in the colon (PSH 52.2–74.4% vs. AR 53.9–74.3%) (P = 0.289). The majority of studies included a large subset of patients with only a solitary tumor with a reported median tumor number of 1–2 regardless of whether the patient underwent PSH or AR. Median EBL was no different among patients undergoing PSH (100–896 mL) versus AR (200–1489 mL) for CLM (P = 0.248). There was no difference in median length-of-stay following PSH (6–17 days) versus AR (7–15 days) (P = 0.747). While there was considerable inter-study variability regarding margin status, there was no difference in the incidence of R0 resection among patients undergoing PSH (66.7–100%) versus AR (71.6–98.6%) (P = 0.58). When assessing overall survival, there was no difference whether resection of CLM was performed with PSH (5 years OS: mean 44.7%, range 29–62%) or AR (5 years OS: mean 44.6%, range 27–64%) (P = 0.97).
PSH had a comparable safety and efficacy profile compared with AR and did not compromise oncologic outcomes. PSH should be considered an appropriate surgical approach to treatment for patients with CLM that facilitates preservation of hepatic parenchyma.
KeywordsParenchymal sparing Anatomic Resection Colorectal liver metastasis
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2012;62(1):10–29.Google Scholar
- 7.Moris D, Dimitrokallis N, Oikonomou D, Mpaili E, Felekouras E. Less is more: salvageability as the new creed in surgery of colorectal liver metastatic disease. Journal of B.U.ON. : official journal of the Balkan Union of Oncology. 2016a;21(6):1562–1563.Google Scholar
- 10.Lalmahomed ZS, Ayez N, van der Pool AE, Verheij J, JN IJ, Verhoef C. Anatomical versus nonanatomical resection of colorectal liver metastases: is there a difference in surgical and oncological outcome? World journal of surgery. 2011;35(3):656–661.Google Scholar
- 18.DeMatteo RP, Palese C, Jarnagin WR, Sun RL, Blumgart LH, Fong Y. Anatomic segmental hepatic resection is superior to wedge resection as an oncologic operation for colorectal liver metastases. Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. 2000;4(2):178–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Stewart GD, O’Suilleabhain CB, Madhavan KK, Wigmore SJ, Parks RW, Garden OJ. The extent of resection influences outcome following hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology. 2004;30(4):370–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Matsuki R, Mise Y, Saiura A, Inoue Y, Ishizawa T, Takahashi Y. Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy for deep-placed colorectal liver metastases. Surgery. 2016.Google Scholar
- 25.Matsumura M, Mise Y, Saiura A, et al. Parenchymal-Sparing Hepatectomy Does Not Increase Intrahepatic Recurrence in Patients with Advanced Colorectal Liver Metastases. Annals of surgical oncology. 2016.Google Scholar
- 35.Gold JS, Are C, Kornprat P, et al. Increased use of parenchymal-sparing surgery for bilateral liver metastases from colorectal cancer is associated with improved mortality without change in oncologic outcome: trends in treatment over time in 440 patients. Annals of surgery. 2008;247(1):109–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Nagakura S, Shirai Y, Yokoyama N, Wakai T, Suda T, Hatakeyama K. Major hepatic resection reduces the probability of intrahepatic recurrences following resection of colorectal carcinoma liver metastases. Hepato-gastroenterology. 2003;50(51):779–783.Google Scholar
- 39.Margonis GA, Sasaki K, Andreatos N, et al. KRAS Mutation Status Dictates Optimal Surgical Margin Width in Patients Undergoing Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Annals of surgical oncology. 2016.Google Scholar
- 44.Pandanaboyana S, Bell R, White A, et al. Impact of parenchymal preserving surgery on survival and recurrence after liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis. ANZ journal of surgery. 2016.Google Scholar
- 46.Moris D, Felekouras E, Chrousos GP. No Cytokine Is an Island: IL-6 Alone Is not Sufficient to Predict Morbidity after a Major Abdominal Surgery. Annals of surgery. 2016b.Google Scholar