Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: A survey-based analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 662-662
Author(s):  
Christopher Griffiths ◽  
Jessica Bogach ◽  
Marko Simunovic ◽  
Leyo Ruo ◽  
Julie I. Hallet ◽  
...  

662 Background: Decision to proceed with simultaneous or staged resection in synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) varies and is usually left to the individual surgeon. We examined practice intentions and barriers to performing simultaneous resection. Methods: We developed and pilot-tested a tailored questionnaire. Members of the Society of Surgical Oncology and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario operating colorectal cancer were surveyed electronically. Four clinical scenarios of synchronous CRLM determined practice intentions for varying degrees of complexity. Perceived barriers were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale. We compared general and hepatobiliary surgeons’ responses with Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Chi-square test for categorical variables. Results: There were 184/1,335 surgeons (14% response rate), including 50 general and 134 hepatobiliary surgeons. Both were supportive of simultaneous resection, though hepatobiliary surgeons were more so; for minor liver and low complexity colorectal resections (Likert ≥5-7: 83% vs. 98% p<0.001), or for complex colorectal resections (57% vs. 73% p=0.042). Both groups were less supportive of simultaneous resection for complex liver with low complexity (Likert ≥5-7: 26% vs. 24% respectively, p=0.858) or high complexity colorectal resections (11% vs. 7.0% respectively, p=0.436). All perceived that simultaneous resection increases post-operative morbidity (63%), but not mortality (69%). Among hepatobiliary surgeons, the most common barriers for simultaneous resections were comorbidities and extrahepatic disease, whereas general surgeons were more concerned about transfer to another facility. Conclusions: While general and hepatobiliary surgeons are supportive of simultaneous resection, especially for less complex liver resections; support is significantly lower among general surgeons. In addition to complexity of procedures and perceived morbidity, the need for transfer of care appears as a barrier to simultaneous resections. The practice intentions and barriers described are important to identify knowledge gaps, guide future trials, and establish disease care pathways.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15073-e15073
Author(s):  
Pablo Emilio Serrano Aybar ◽  
Christopher Griffiths ◽  
Jessica Bogach ◽  
Leyo Ruo ◽  
Julie Hallet ◽  
...  

e15073 Background: Patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases may undergo simultaneous or staged resection. Methods: We electronically surveyed members of the Society of Surgical Oncology, Canadian Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario with a pilot-tested questionnaire. Four clinical scenarios were presented. Perceived outcomes of and barriers to simultaneous resection were assessed on a Likert scale using Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests for ordinal and categorical variables, respectively. We compared results between general and hepatobiliary surgeons. We sought to determine surgeons’ attitudes and perceived barriers to simultaneous resection and compare them between general and hepatobiliary surgeons. Results: The response rate of 20% (234/1166) included 50 general and 134 hepatobiliary surgeons. A high likelihood score (Likert ≥5-7) for support of simultaneous resection among general and hepatobiliary surgeons, respectively, included the following: for minor liver and low complexity colon, 83% and 98% (p < 0.001); for minor liver and rectal resection, 57% and 73% (p = 0.042); for complex liver and low complexity colon resection, 26% and 24% (p = 0.858); and, for complex liver and rectal resection, 11% and 7.0% (p = 0.436). Among hepatobiliary surgeons, the most common barriers for simultaneous resections were patient comorbidities and extrahepatic disease, whereas general surgeons additionally identified transferring care to another facility. Lack of information regarding non-responders is relevant given our relatively low response rate. Our respondents mostly worked in academic settings, which may not be representative of the majority of surgeons who manage colorectal cancer. Conclusions: Surgeon support for simultaneous resection increased with less complex surgery and was similar among hepatobiliary and general surgeons. Surgeons’ perceived practice patterns and barriers to simultaneous resection should inform clinical trials and disease care pathways.


HPB ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S250-S251
Author(s):  
E. Sobutay ◽  
Ç. Bilgiç ◽  
U. Can ◽  
S. Zenger ◽  
B. Gürbüz ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 451
Author(s):  
Zeno Sparchez ◽  
Tudor Mocan ◽  
Pompilia Radu ◽  
Iuliana Nenu ◽  
Mihai Comsa ◽  
...  

It has been a long time since tumor ablation was first tested in patients with liver cancer, especially hepatocellular carcinoma. Since than it has become a first line treatment modality for hepatocellular carcinoma. Over the years, the indications of thermal ablation have expanded to colorectal cancer liver metastases and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma as well. Together with the new indication for ablation, new ablation devices have been developed as well. Among them microwave ablation shows potential in replacing radiofrequency ablation as the preferred method of thermal ablation in liver cancer. The debate whether radiofrequency or microwave ablation should be the preferred method of treatment in patients with liver cancer remains open. The main purpose of this review is to offer some answers to the question: Microwave ablation in liver tumors: a better tool or simply more power? Various clinical scenarios will be analyzed including small, medium, and intermediate size hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal cancer liver metastases and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Furthermore, the advantages, limitations, and technical considerations of MWA treatment will be provided also.


2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
Miroslav Milicevic ◽  
Predrag Bulajic ◽  
Marinko Zuvela ◽  
Zoran Raznjatovic ◽  
Nebojca Lekic ◽  
...  

Aim: To review and discuss the current strategies and controversies in the surgical management of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Methods: An analysis of indications, contraindications and scoring systems and concepts for expanding the indications for resection are discussed. The findings and discussion are related to our own experience, especially with radiofrequency assisted liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases. Results: Resection is the only management strategy that can potentially cure the patient. Certain controversies still exist, such as contraindications for surgery, timing of treatment of synchronous metastases, significance of extra-hepatic disease etc. Strategies that can improve respectability are discussed. Parenchyma oriented, tissue sparing surgery facilitates reresection should it become necessary. Conclusion: The management of colorectal cancer liver metastases is still a confusing issue for general oncologists and general surgeons. A multidisciplinary approach that tailors the management strategy to the individual patient is the only option that provides optimal results for patients with advanced disease.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 665-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Bogach ◽  
Julian Wang ◽  
Sameer Parpia ◽  
Marko Simunovic ◽  
Julie I. Hallet ◽  
...  

665 Background: While considered safe, simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer primary and liver metastases is not performed routinely. We aimed to identify practice patterns, short and long-term outcomes of simultaneous vs. staged resections for synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases. Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study of patients undergoing resection for synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases from 2006-2015 by linking administrative healthcare datasets in Ontario, Canada. Resection of the primary colorectal cancer and liver metastases within six months was considered synchronous disease. Simultaneous (same hospital admission) and staged resections were compared. Outcomes were 90-day post-operative mortality, total length of hospital stay, overall survival and healthcare costs. Survival for the staged group was measured from the last surgical resection to death and estimated using Kaplan Meier. Cost analysis was undertaken from the perspective of a third-party payer and compared using t test. Results: Of 2,738 patients undergoing colorectal and liver resection for colorectal cancer, 1,168 were synchronous, of which, 442 underwent simultaneous resection. The rate of simultaneous resections increased on average by 3% per year (p = 0.02). Median total length of stay was shorter (8 vs. 11 days); 90-day post-operative mortality was higher for simultaneous resections (3.4% vs 1.2%). Median overall survival was worse with simultaneous resection (40 months, 95%CI 35-46 vs. 78 months, 95%CI 59-86), with a 5-year overall survival of 37% (simultaneous) and 55% (staged). Mean overall costs were lower for simultaneous resections ($12,722 CAD vs. $16,455 CAD. Conclusions: Simultaneous resection compared to staged resection for patients with synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases is associated with higher 90-day postoperative mortality and worse survival. It was associated with shorter length of hospital stay and lower costs for the health cares system. Considering selection bias, randomized studies would be necessary to determine the role of simultaneous resection for synchronous disease colorectal cancer liver metastases.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3612-3612
Author(s):  
Pablo Emilio Serrano Aybar ◽  
Jessica Bogach ◽  
Julian Wang ◽  
Sameer Parpia ◽  
Julie Hallet ◽  
...  

3612 Background: Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer primary and liver metastases is not performed routinely due to concerns about safety. We hypothesized that simultaneous resection has steadily increased overtime and that the outcomes are similar. Methods: Population-based cohort study of patients undergoing resection for synchronous (resection of the primary colorectal cancer and liver metastases within six months) liver metastases from 2006-2015 by linking administrative datasets in Ontario, Canada. Outcomes: post-operative complications, length of hospital stay, and overall survival. Survival for the staged group was measured from the last surgical resection to death and estimated using Kaplan Meier and compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate risks for death. We aimed to identify practice patterns, outcomes of simultaneous vs. staged resections for these patients. Results: Of 2,738 patients undergoing colorectal and liver resection for colorectal cancer, 1,168 were synchronous, of which, 442 underwent simultaneous resection. Rate of synchronous disease presentation increased on average by 3% per year (p = 0.02). Median length of stay was shorter (8 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001); rate of major liver resections were lower (17% vs. 65%, p < 0.001), and 90-day post-operative mortality was higher (6% vs. 1%) for simultaneous resections. Major postoperative complications were higher in the simultaneous group (28% vs. 23%, p = 0.067), mostly due to a higher reoperation rate (6% vs. 3%, p = 0.034). Median overall survival was worse with simultaneous resection (40 months, 95%CI 35-46 vs. 78 months, 95%CI 59-86). Risks factors for worse survival were comorbidities, rurality, right-sided primary and simultaneous resection. There is selection bias that favours survival in the staged group, as patients must have survived the first operation and have stable disease in order to undergo the second operation. Conclusions: Simultaneous resection is associated with worse postoperative outcomes. Considering selection bias, randomized studies would be necessary to determine the role of simultaneous.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document