Importance of resection margin after resection of colorectal liver metastases in the era of modern chemotherapy: population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Resection margin has been associated with overall survival following liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis. The aim of this study was to examine how resection margins of 0.0 mm, 0.1-0.9 mm and ≥1 mm influence overall survival in patients resected for colorectal liver metastasis in a time of modern perioperative chemotherapy and surgery. METHODS: Using data from the national registries Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry and Swedish National Quality Registry for Liver, Bile Duct and Gallbladder Cancer, patients that had liver resections for colorectal liver metastasis between 2009 and 2013 were included. In patients with a narrow or unknown surgical margin the original pathological reports were re-reviewed. Factors influencing overall survival were analysed using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: A total of 754 patients had a known margin status, of which 133 (17.6%) patients had a resection margin <1 mm. The overall survival in patients with a margin of 0 mm or 0.1-0.9 mm was 42 (95% c.i. 31 to 53) and 48 (95% c.i. 35 to 62) months respectively, compared with 75 (95% c.i. 65 to 85) for patients with ≥1 mm margin, P < 0.001. Margins of 0 mm or 0.1-0.9 mm were associated with poor overall survival in the multivariable analysis, HR 1.413 (95% c.i. 1.030 to 1.939), P = 0.032, and 1.399 (95% c.i. 1.025 to 1.910), P = 0.034, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite modern chemotherapy the resection margin is still an important factor for the survival of patients resected for colorectal liver metastasis, and a margin of ≥1 mm is needed to achieve the best possible outcome.

Efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Several studies demonstrated trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab (BEV) had better efficacy than the monotherapy of TAS-102 in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it remains unclear whether Chinese population can benefit from this combination or not. Hence, we conducted this retrospective cohort study to compare the efficacy and safety between TAS-102 plus BEV with TAS-102 monotherapy in refractory mCRC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study enrolled patients (any age) with refractory mCRC from Hunan Cancer Hospital. The main inclusion criteria were histopathologically and/or radiographically confirmed refractory mCRC, World Health Organization (WHO) performance status of 0 to 2, adequate organ function, and initial treatment of TAS-102 with or without BEV between November 2020 and October 2022. Previous therapy with fruquintinib or regorafenib was allowed but not mandatory. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were collected appropriately. Every 2 or 3 treatment cycles, the patients were assessed by computed tomography (CT) scans and clinical assessments until disease progression or loss to follow-up. The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 5.0 (NCI-CTCAE 5.0) were presented as n (%). The primary endpoint was investigator-evaluated overall survival (OS). As this is a retrospective cohort study, sample size calculation was not performed. Eligible patients would be enrolled as many as possible. Results: A total of 90 patients were enrolled, including 58 patients who received TAS-102 plus BEV and another 32 patients who received TAS-102 monotherapy. The known baseline characteristics were comparable (P<0.05). With a median follow-up of 4.60 months (range, 0.20-22.80), the median OS (mOS) time in the TAS-102 plus BEV group was longer than that in the TAS-102 monotherapy group (10.83 vs. 7.43 months), but the difference was not significant (P=0.79). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) time was comparable between the two groups (4.67 vs. 4.30 months, P=0.96). Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that undergoing therapy after TAS-102 either with or without BEV was an independent risk factor for OS [hazard ratio (HR) =0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09-0.71, P<0.01], and previous treatment with cetuximab was an independent protective factor for PFS (HR =0.17; 95% CI: 0.03-0.91, P=0.04). Of the 70 patients who were evaluated, those receiving TAS-102 plus BEV showed trend of a higher objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) than those who received TAS-102 monotherapy (P=0.16 and P=0.29, respectively). Adverse events (AEs) were similar between the two groups, except that the incidence of platelet count decrease (grade ≥3) was significantly higher in the TAS-102 plus BEV group. Conclusions: There was a trend in favor of the combination of BEV plus TAS-102 regarding OS and DCR, without reaching statistical significance, and it means that there was no clear advantage of one over the other in terms of efficacy. Further prospective studies are still necessary to draw a definite conclusion.

Irreversible electroporation of hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal cancer liver metastases: A nationwide multicenter study with short- and long-term follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: A nationwide multicenter study was performed to examine short- and long-term effects of irreversible electroporation (IRE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM). IRE is an alternative method when thermal ablation is contraindicated because of risk for serious thermal complications. METHODS: All consecutive patients in Sweden treated with IRE because of HCC or CRCLM, were included between 2011 and 2018. We evaluated medical records and radiological imaging to obtain information regarding patient-, tumor-, and treatment characteristics. We also assessed local tumor progression, and survival. RESULTS: In total 206 tumors in 149 patients were treated with IRE. Eighty-seven patients (58.4%) had colorectal cancer liver metastases, and 62 patients (41.6%) had hepatocellular carcinoma. Median tumor size was 20 mm (i.q.r. 14-26 mm). Median overall survival for CRCLM and HCC, were 27.0 months (95% CI 22.2-31.8 months), and 35.0 months (95% CI 13.8-56.2 months), respectively. Median follow-up time was 58 months (95% CI 50.6-65.4). Local ablation success at six and twelve months for HCC was 58.3% and 40.3%, and for CRCLM 37.7% and 25.4%. The median time to local tumor progression (LTP) for HCC was 21.0 months (95% CI: 9.5-32.5 months), and for CRCLM 6.0 months (95% CI: 4.5-7.5 months). At 30-day follow-up, 15.4% (n = 23) of patients suffered from a complication rated as Clavien-Dindo grade 1-3a. Three patients (2.0%) had grade 3b-5 with one death in a thromboembolic event. CONCLUSION: IRE is a safe ablation modality for patients with liver tumors that are located in such a way that other treatment options are unsuitable.

A comparison of the simultaneous, liver-first, and colorectal-first strategies for surgical treatment of synchronous colorectal liver metastases at two major liver-surgery institutions in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment strategy for patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of the simultaneous, liver-first, and colorectal-first surgical approaches. METHODS: All consecutive patients who had been resected with curative intent for CRLM were included. A Cox regression model was constructed, and an intention-to-treat analysis was performed between the liver-first and the simultaneous approaches, after propensity score matching. RESULTS: 658 patients were included in the analysis. 92 patients had a simultaneous resection, 163 patients had liver-first, and 403 patients had a colorectal-first approach. Overall survival was 54.9 months (95% CI 39.2-70.4) in the liver-first group, 54.5 months (95% CI 46.8-62.3) in colorectal-first group, and 59.6 months (95% CI 42.2-77.0) in the simultaneous group (log-rank p =0.850). In the matched cohort there were no differences in Clavien-Dindo 3a (p = 0.992) or 3b and greater (p = 0.999). Median overall survival was for liver-first group 42.2 months (95% CI 26.3-58.2), and for the simultaneous group 56.2 months (95% CI 47.1-65.4) (stratified log-rank p = 0.455). CONCLUSION: A simultaneous approach was not associated with worse overall survival or morbidity compared to a liver-first approach.

Composite Score: prognostic tool to predict survival in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Several existing scoring systems predict survival of patients with colorectal liver metastases. Many lack validation, rely on old clinical data, and have been found to be less accurate since the introduction of chemotherapy. This study aimed to construct and validate a clinically relevant preoperative prognostic model for patients with colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: A predictive model with data available before surgery was developed. Survival was analysed by Cox regression analysis, and the quality of the model was assessed using discrimination and calibration. The model was validated using multifold cross-validation. RESULTS: The model included 1212 consecutive patients who underwent liver resection for colorectal liver metastases between 2005 and 2015. Prognostic factors for survival included advanced age, raised C-reactive protein level, hypoalbuminaemia, extended liver resection, larger number of metastases, and midgut origin of the primary tumour. A Composite Score was developed based on the prognostic variables. Patients were classified into those at low, medium, and high risk. Survival differences between the groups were significant; median overall survival was 87.4 months in the low-risk group, 50.1 months in the medium-risk group, and 22.6 months in the high-risk group. The discriminative performance, assessed by the concordance index, was 0.71, 0.67, and 0.67 respectively at 1, 3, and 5 years. Calibration, assessed graphically, was close to perfect. A multifold cross-validation of the model confirmed its internal validity (C-index 0.63 versus 0.62). CONCLUSION: The Composite Score categorizes patients into risk strata, and may help identify patients who have a poor prognosis, for whom surgery is questionable.

Oxaliplatin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with single drug versus multiple drug treatment for colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term survival for selected patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) is possible when treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). The objective of this study was to compare three different oxaliplatin-based (OX)-HIPEC regimens. Primary end-point was disease-free survival (DFS), and secondary endpoints, morbidity and overall survival (OS). METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all patients with colorectal PM treated with CRS and HIPEC between 2004 and 2015 from the prospectively maintained Uppsala HIPEC database. One hundred and thirty-three patients were identified. Three HIPEC regimens were included: OX-HIPEC, OX-HIPEC + post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and oxaliplatin-irinotecan-based (OXIRI)-HIPEC. Multivariable Cox regression for DFS was performed. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients received OX-HIPEC, 24 patients received OX-HIPEC + 5-FU EPIC, and 48 patients received OXIRI-HIPEC. The DFS for the OX-HIPEC group was 10.5 months, OX-HIPEC + EPIC 11.9 months, and OXIRI-HIPEC 13.4 months (OX-HIPEC vs. OXIRI HIPEC, P=0.049). The morbidity and OS did not differ between the groups. In the multivariable analysis, low peritoneal cancer index (PCI), absence of liver metastases, low completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score, and multiple drug (EPIC or OXIRI) HIPEC regimen were independent prognostic factors for DFS. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed improved DFS with an intensification of HIPEC by adding irinotecan or EPIC compared to oxaliplatin alone without an increase in morbidity or mortality.

The prognostic value of C-reactive protein and albumin in patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases. A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The systemic inflammation-based Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and modified GPS (mGPS), as measured by preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin, correlate with poor survival in several cancers. This study evaluates the prognostic value of these scores in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: This retrospective study assessed the prognostic role of preoperatively measured GPS and mGPS in patients undergoing liver resection because of CRLM. Clinicopathological data were retrieved from local databases. The prognostic value of GPS and mGPS were compared and a Cox regression model was used to find independent predictors of overall survival. RESULTS: In total, 849 consecutive patients between January 2005 and December 2015 were included. Patients with GPS 0 had a median survival of 70 months compared to 49 months in patients with GPS 1, and 27 months in patients with GPS 2. Multivariable analyses showed that GPS 1 (HR = 1.51, 95%CI [1.14-2.01]) and GPS 2 (HR = 2.78, 95%CI [1.79-4.31]), after correction for age >70 years (HR = 1.75 [1.36-2.26]), and extended resection (HR = 2.53, 95%CI[1.79-3.58]), were associated with poor overall survival. CONCLUSION: A preoperative GPS is an independent prognostic factor in patients with CRLM, and appears to be a better prognostic tool than mGPS.