The Past, Present and Future of Pulmonary Metastasectomy: A Review Article.

Pulmonary metastases are a sign of advanced malignancy and an omen of poor prognosis. Once primary tumors metastasize, they become notoriously difficult to treat and interdisciplinary management often involves a combination of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery. Over the last 25 years, the emerging body of evidence has recognized the curative potential of pulmonary metastasectomy. Surgical resection of pulmonary metastases is now commonly considered for patients with controlled primary disease, absence of widely disseminated extrapulmonary disease, completely resectable lung metastases, sufficient cardiopulmonary reserve, and lack of a better alternative systemic therapy. Since the development of these selection criteria, other prognostic factors have been proposed to better predict survival and optimize the selection of surgical candidates. Disease-free interval (DFI), completeness of resection, surgical approach, number and laterality of lung metastases, and lymph node metastases all play a dynamic role in determining patient outcomes. There is a definite need to continue reviewing these prognosticators to identify patients who will benefit most from pulmonary metastasectomy and those who should avoid unnecessary loss of lung parenchyma. This literature review aims to explore and synthesize the last 25 years of evidence on the long-term survival, prognostic factors, and patient selection process for pulmonary metastasectomy.

History and present status of pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer.

Clinical practice with respect to metastatic colorectal cancer differs from the other two most common cancers, breast and lung, in that routine surveillance is recommended with the specific intent of detecting liver and lung metastases and undertaking liver and lung resections for their removal. We trace the history of this approach to colorectal cancer by reviewing evidence for effectiveness from the 1950s to the present day. Our sources included published citation network analyses, the documented proposal for randomised trials, large systematic reviews, and meta-analysis of observational studies. The present consensus position has been adopted on the basis of a large number of observational studies but the randomised trials proposed in the 1980s and 1990s were either not done, or having been done, were not reported. Clinical opinion is the mainstay of current practice but in the absence of randomised trials there remains a possibility of selection bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are now routine before adoption of a new practice but RCTs are harder to run in evaluation of already established practice. One such trial is recruiting and shows that controlled trial are possible.