Advertisement

Primary Tumor Versus Liver-First Approach for Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases: An Association Française de Chirurgie (AFC) Multicenter-Based Study with Propensity Score Analysis

  • Francesco Esposito
  • Chetana Lim
  • Antonio Sa Cunha
  • Patrick Pessaux
  • Francis Navarro
  • Daniel Azoulay
  • On behalf of the French Colorectal Liver Metastases Working Group, Association Française de Chirurgie (AFC)
Original Scientific Report
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Multicenter studies comparing the reverse strategy (RS) with the classical strategy (CS) for the management of stage IVA liver-only colorectal cancer (CCR) are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival and recurrence patterns following use of the CS and RS.

Method

This retrospective multicenter review collected data from all consecutive patients with stage IVA liver-only CCR who underwent staged resection of CCR and liver metastases (LM) at 24 French hospitals between 2006 and 2013 and were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who underwent simultaneous liver and CCR resection, those with synchronous extrahepatic metastasis, and those who underwent emergent CCR resection were excluded. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates and recurrence patterns were investigated before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

A total of 653 patients were included: 587 (89.9%) in the CS group and 66 (10.1%) in the RS group. Compared with the CS patients, RS patients were more likely to have rectal cancer (43.9 vs. 24.9%; p = 0.006), larger liver tumor size (52.5 ± 38.6 vs. 39.6 ± 30 mm; p = 0.01), and more positive lymph nodes (62.1 vs. 44.8%; p = 0.009). OS was not different between the two groups (75 vs. 72% at 5 years; p = 0.77), while RFS was worse in the RS group (24 vs. 33% at 5 years; p = 0.01). Time to recurrence at any site (1.8 vs. 2.4 years, p = 0.024) and intrahepatic recurrence (1.7 vs. 2.2 years, p = 0.014) were significantly shorter in the RS group than in the CS group. After PSM (63 patients in each group), no significant difference was found between the two groups in OS (p = 0.35), RFS (p = 0.62), time to recurrence at any site (p = 0.19), or intrahepatic recurrence (p = 0.13).

Conclusions

In this study, approximately 10% of patients with CCR and synchronous LM were offered surgery with the RS. Both strategies ensured similar oncological outcomes.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participating centers for their contribution to this study.

Contributors: Amiens, CHU Amiens Picardie: Cyril Cosse, Delphine Lignier, Jean Marc Regimbeau; Angers, CHU Angers: Julien Barbieux, Emilie Lermite, Antoine Hamy; Beauvais, CH Beauvais: François Mauvais; Bordeaux, Groupe Hospitalier Saint André: Christophe Laurent; Chambery, CH Chambery: Irchid Al Naasan; Créteil, CHU Henri Mondor: Daniel Azoulay, Chady Salloum, Philippe Compagnon, Chetana Lim; Eaubonne, Hôpital Simone Veil: Mohammed Sbai Idrissi; Epinal, Polyclinique de la Ligne Bleue: Fréderic Martin; Gap, CH des Alpes du Sud: Jerôme Atger; Lyon, Hôpital de la Croix Rousse: Jacques Baulieux, Benjamin Darnis, Jean Yves; Mabrut; Lyon, Hôpital Edouart-Herriot: Vahan Kepenekian, Julie Perinel, Mustapha Adham; Lyon, CH Lyon Sud: Olivier Glehen; Lyon, Centre Léon Bérard: Michel Rivoire; Marseille, Hôpital de la Conception: Jean Hardwigsen, Anais Palen, Emilie Grégoire, Yves Patrice LeTreut; Marseille, Institut Paoli-Calmettes: Jean Robert Delpero, Olivier Turrini; Montpellier, Hôpital Saint Eloi: Astrid Herrero, Francis Navarro, Fabrizio Panaro; Nancy, CHU Brabois: Ahmet Ayav, Laurent Bresler; Nancy, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine Alexis-Vautrin: Philippe Rauch, François; Guillemin, Fréderic Marchal; Nice, Hôpital de l’Archet: Jean Gugenheim, Antonio Iannelli; Kremlin Bicêtre, CHU Kremlin Bicêtre: Stephane Benoist, Antoine Brouquet; Paris, Hôpital Lariboisière: Marc Pocard, Réa Lo Dico; Paris, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris: Brice Gayet, David Fuks; Paris, Hôpital Saint Antoine: Olivier. Scatton, Olivier Soubrane; Paris, Hôpital de la Pitié Salpetrière: Jean-Christophe Vaillant; Reims, Hôpital Robert Debré: Tullio Piardi, Daniel Sommacale, Reza Kianmanesh; La Roche-sur-Yon, Centre départemental de Vendée: Michel Comy; Strasbourg, Hôpital Hautepierre: Philippe Bachellier, Elie Oussoultzoglou, Pietro Addeo; Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil: Dimitrios Ntourakis, Patrick Pessaux, Didier Mutter, Jacques Marescaux; Toulouse, Hôpital Rangueil: Loïc Raoux, Bertrand Suc, Fabrice Muscari; Troyes, Hôpital des Hauts-Clos: Georges Elhomsy; Villejuif, Hôpital Paul Brousse: Maximiliano Gelli, Antonio Sa Cunha, René Adam, Denis Castaing, Daniel Cherqui; Gabriella Pittau, Oriana Ciacio, Eric Vibert; and Villejuif, Gustave Roussy: Dominique Elias, Diane Goére, Fabrizio Vittadello.

Author contributions

Esposito, Lim, and Azoulay contributed to the study concept and design and statistical analysis. All authors involved in acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data. Esposito, Lim, and Azoulay drafted the manuscript. Lim, Azoulay, Sa Cunha, Navarro, and Pessaux critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. Navarro, Sa Cunha, and Pessaux provided administrative, technical, and material support. Lim and Azoulay supervised the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

268_2018_4711_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)
268_2018_4711_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 16 kb)
268_2018_4711_MOESM3_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 14 kb)
268_2018_4711_MOESM4_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Mentha G, Majno PE, Andres A, Rubbia-Brandt L, Morel P, Roth AD (2006) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection of advanced synchronous liver metastases before treatment of the colorectal primary. Br J Surg 93(7):872–878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feng Q, Wei Y, Zhu D et al (2014) Timing of hepatectomy for resectable synchronous colorectal liver metastases: for whom simultaneous resection is more suitable—a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9(8):e104348CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slesser AA, Chand M, Goldin R, Brown G, Tekkis PP, Mudan S (2013) Outcomes of simultaneous resections for patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol 39(12):1384–1393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reddy SK, Pawlik TM, Zorzi D et al (2007) Simultaneous resections of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: a multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 14(12):3481–3491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lim C, Doussot A, Osseis M et al (2016) Primary tumor versus liver-first strategy in patients with stage IVA colorectal cancer: a propensity score analysis of long-term outcomes and recurrence pattern. Ann Surg Oncol 23(9):3024–3032CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tanaka K, Murakami T, Matsuo K et al (2015) Preliminary results of ‘liver-first’ reverse management for advanced and aggressive synchronous colorectal liver metastases: a propensity-matched analysis. Dig Surg 32(1):16–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allard MA, Cunha AS, Gayet B et al (2015) Early and long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score-based analysis. Ann Surg 262(5):794–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Memeo R, de Blasi V, Adam R et al (2016) Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomies (PSH) for bilobar colorectal liver metastases are associated with a lower morbidity and similar oncological results: a propensity score matching analysis. HPB (Oxford) 18(9):781–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hallet J, Cunha AS, Adam R et al (2016) Outcomes of rehepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: a contemporary multi-institutional analysis from the French surgical association database. Ann Surg Oncol 23(Suppl 5):894–903CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Memeo R, de Blasi V, Adam R et al (2017) Margin status is still an important prognostic factor in hepatectomies for colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score matching analysis. World J Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4229-7 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hallet J, Cunha AS, Adam R et al (2016) Factors influencing recurrence following initial hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 103(10):1366–1376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Cutsem E, Nordlinger B, Adam R et al (2006) Towards a pan-European consensus on the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Cancer 42(14):2212–2221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Benchimol EI, Langan S, Guttmann A, Committee RS (2013) Call to RECORD: the need for complete reporting of research using routinely collected health data. J Clin Epidemiol 66(7):703–705CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 46(3):399–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Valdimarsson VT, Syk I, Lindell G et al (2017) Outcomes of liver-first strategy and classical strategy for synchronous colorectal liver metastases in Sweden. HPB (Oxford) 20:441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Welsh FK, Chandrakumaran K, John TG, Cresswell AB, Rees M (2016) Propensity score-matched outcomes analysis of the liver-first approach for synchronous colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 103(5):600–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brouquet A, Mortenson MM, Vauthey JN et al (2010) Surgical strategies for synchronous colorectal liver metastases in 156 consecutive patients: classic, combined or reverse strategy? J Am Coll Surg 210(6):934–941CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sturesson C, Valdimarsson VT, Blomstrand E et al (2017) Liver-first strategy for synchronous colorectal liver metastases—an intention-to-treat analysis. HPB (Oxford) 19(1):52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hallet J, Cunha AS, Adam R et al (2016) Factors influencing recurrence following initial hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 103(10):1366–1376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hallet J, Cunha AS, Adam R et al (2016) Outcomes of rehepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. A contemporary multi-institutional analysis from the French surgical association database. Ann Surg Oncol 23:894–903CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Esposito
    • 1
  • Chetana Lim
    • 1
  • Antonio Sa Cunha
    • 2
  • Patrick Pessaux
    • 3
    • 4
  • Francis Navarro
    • 5
  • Daniel Azoulay
    • 1
    • 6
  • On behalf of the French Colorectal Liver Metastases Working Group, Association Française de Chirurgie (AFC)
  1. 1.Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Henri Mondor HospitalUniversité Paris-Est (UPEC)CréteilFrance
  2. 2.Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver TransplantationPaul Brousse HospitalVillejuifFrance
  3. 3.Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire, Institute for Minimally Hybrid Invasive Image-Guided SurgeryUniversité de StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  4. 4.Institut de Recherche sur les Cancers de l’Appareil Digestif (IRCAD)StrasbourgFrance
  5. 5.Department of Surgery, Saint-Eloi HospitalUniversité de MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  6. 6.INSERM, U955CréteilFrance

Personalised recommendations