Introduction Liver resection prior to resection of the primary cancer is a novel strategy advocated for selected patients presenting with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM). This study measured outcomes in patients with sCRLM, following a liver-first (LFA) or classical approach (CA) and used a validated propensity score, the Basingstoke Predictive Index (BPI), to determine differences in survival between case-matched groups.
Method Clinical, pathologic, and complete follow-up (median 34 months) data were prospectively recorded from 582 consecutive patients undergoing hepatic resection for sCRLM at a single centre (2004–2014). 98 patients had a LFA and 467 had a CA to treatment. 17 patients who had a simultaneous bowel and liver resection were excluded. Cumulative disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan Meier analysis.
Results The LFA group had significantly more patients with rectal cancer (44.9% vs. 27.8%, p = 0.001) or poorly differentiated primaries (17.3% vs. 9%, p = 0.001), had a higher median [interquartile range (IQR)] number of sCRLM [3 (1–20) versus 2 (0–19), p = 0.0007] and size (in millimetres) of sCRLM [17 (3–24), versus 15 (2–29), p = 0.023], compared to the CA patients. Moreover, the median (IQR) preoperative BPI was significantly higher in the LFA group [8.5 (5–10)], versus CA group [8.0 (4–9), p = 0.03]. 73.5% of LFA patients had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared to 59.7% in the CA group (p = 0.01). Whilst more LFA patients had a major liver resection (69.4% vs. 56.5%, p = 0.018), there was no difference in Clavien-Dindo grade 3/4 complications (10.2% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.392), median (IQR) length of stay in days [6 (4–9) versus 6 (5–8), p = 0.835] or 30-day mortality [2% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.079] compared to the CA group. The 5 year DFS was 22.8% in the LFA group, significantly lower than the CA group (45.6%, p = 0.001). However there was no difference in 5 year CSS (53.8% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.379) or OS between groups (43.7% vs. 49.6%, p = 0.305). When patients were matched for pre-operative BPI, there was no statistical difference in either 5 year DFS (37% vs. 41.2%, p = 0.083), CSS (53.2% vs. 51.2%, p = 0.616) or OS (44.9% vs. 49.8%, p = 0.846) between groups.
Conclusion In our unit, patients with sCRLM selected for a LFA were a group with more oncologically advanced disease and a poorer prognosis. These patients had a significantly inferior cumulative DFS compared to patients selected for a CA. However, there was no significant difference in cumulative DFS when prognostic variables were matched according to preoperative BPI. These data provide further evidence to support a LFA in selected patients with sCRLM.
Disclosure of interest None Declared.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.