Reappraisal of the risks and benefits of major liver resection in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3609-3609
Author(s):  
Francois Cauchy ◽  
Beatrice Aussilhou ◽  
Safi Dokmak ◽  
David Fuks ◽  
Olivier Farges ◽  
...  

3609 Background: Improvements in both surgical technique and efficacy of chemotherapy have increased the rate of resection for patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (IU-CRLM). We aimed to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of major hepatectomy for such patients. Methods: From 2000 to 2011, 257 patients underwent major hepatectomy for CRLM. Seventy-eight (30%) of these patients were considered IU and required portal vein occlusion and/or ≥12 cycles or change in induction chemotherapy regimen to achieve resectability. Results: IU patients had respectively more lesions (5.6 vs.3.6, p=0.001), more frequently bilobar (70% vs.50% p=0.008) and synchronous (83.3% vs.70%, p=0.027) than initially resectable (IR) patients. Post-operative mortality (12.8% vs.1.7%, p=0.001) and major complications (46.2% vs.22.3%, p=0.0001) were higher in IU patients. An associated metabolic syndrome (HR 5.2, CI 1.2-21.9, p=0.025), high grade sinusoidal lesions (HR 2.4, CI 1.1-5.8, p=0.044) and the need for vascular reconstruction (HR 6.3, CI 1.2-34.4, p=0.032) were significant risk factors for major morbidity in IU patients. Significantly fewer IU patients received adjuvant chemotherapy in case of major postoperative complications compared to IR patients (47% vs. 83%, p=0.001). Overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in IU than in IR patients (26% vs.55%, p=0.032) and all IU patients had tumor recurrence within 3 years. The absence of adjuvant chemotherapy and tumor size ≥5 cm were the only factors associated with poor survival in multivariate analysis for IU patients. Conclusions: IU-CRLM patients requiring major liver resection displayed higher morbidity and mortality rates than IR ones, therefore compromising both short and long-term outcomes. Multimodal strategy should be reassessed in the presence of metabolic syndrome, sinusoidal lesions or major vascular involvement.

2015 ◽  
Vol 100 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 1276-1280
Author(s):  
Osama Damrah ◽  
Panagis M. Lykoudis ◽  
Rafael Orti-Rodriguez ◽  
Theodora Pissanou ◽  
Dinesh Sharma ◽  
...  

The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate whether patients over 70 years old are at significantly higher risk for worse outcomes following major liver resection. Hepatic resection is the only treatment offering long-term survival for patients with colorectal liver metastases. As the population considered for metastasectomy is aging, there are still controversial published results regarding the safety of major hepatectomy in elderly patients. Between December 2002 and April 2010, 327 patients underwent major liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: group A, <70 years old; and group B, ≥70 years old. Recorded, analyzed, and compared data across groups included the following: (1) patient characteristics including age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists performance status, primary tumor site and stage, adjuvant chemotherapy, number and size of metastatic lesions; (2) perioperative data including extent of resection, in-hospital mortality, postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, length of intensive treatment unit stay and blood loss; and (3) overall survival. The patients' characteristics were similar as were the characteristics of their tumors. There was no difference in overall morbidity (25% versus 22%) or postoperative mortality (2.6% versus 2.9%) (P = 0.44 and 0.57, respectively). The overall survival was 67% versus 62% in group A and B, respectively (P = 0.09). Elderly patients can safely undergo major liver resection for colorectal liver metastases with short- and long-term outcomes comparable with younger patients.


2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (8) ◽  
pp. 2048-2060 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Hobeika ◽  
François Cauchy ◽  
Nicolas Poté ◽  
Pierre-Emmanuel Rautou ◽  
François Durand ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 300-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Hallet ◽  
Kaitlyn Beyfuss ◽  
Riccardo Memeo ◽  
Paul J. Karanicolas ◽  
Jacques Marescaux ◽  
...  

Open Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 964-972
Author(s):  
Aoxiao He ◽  
Zhihao Huang ◽  
Jiakun Wang ◽  
Qian Feng ◽  
Rongguiyi Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) are still uncertain. The purpose of the present study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LMH with those of open major hepatectomy (OMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Method Between January 2012 and December 2018, a total of 26 patients received laparoscopic major hepatectomy in our center. To minimize any confounding factors, a 1:3 case-matched analysis was conducted based on the demographics and extent of liver resection. Data of demographics, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes were reviewed. Results Intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.007) was significantly lower in the LMH group. In addition, the LMH group exhibited a lower overall complication rate (P = 0.039) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.024). However, no statistically significant difference was found between LMH and OMH regarding operation time (P = 0.215) and operative cost (P = 0.860). Two laparoscopic cases were converted to open liver resection. In regard to long-term outcomes, there was no significant difference between LMH and OMH regarding disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.079) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.172). Conclusion LMH can be an effective and safe alternative to OMH for selected patients with liver cancer in short- and long-term outcomes.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aoxiao He ◽  
Yong Li ◽  
Jiakun Wang ◽  
Qian Feng ◽  
Wenjun Liao ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) is still uncertain. The purpose of the present study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LMH with those of open major hepatectomy (OMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Method: Between January 2012 and December 2018, a total of 26 patients received laparoscopic major hepatectomy in our center. To minimize any confounding factors, a 1:3 case-matched analysis was conducted based on the demographics and extent of liver resection. Data of demographics, perioperative outcomes and long-term oncologic outcomes were reviewed.Results: Intraoperative blood loss (P=0.007) were significantly lower in LMH group. In addition, LMH group exhibited a lower overall complication rate (P=0.039) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P=0.024). However, no statistically significant difference was found between LMH and OMH regarding operation time (P=0.215) and overall cost (P=0.024). Two laparoscopic cases were converted to open liver resection. In regard with long-term outcomes, there was no significant difference between LMH and OMH regarding disease-free survival (DFS) (P=0.079) and overall survival (OS) (P=0.172).Conclusion: LMH can be an effective and safe alternative to OMH for selected patients with liver cancer in short- and long-term outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document