RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Surgical resection of colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) has been associated with improved survival in these patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the usefulness of liver metastasectomy, also finding independent factors related to survival after liver metastasectomy. METHODS: In a retrospective study, all patients with CRLM who underwent resection of liver metastases between 2012 and 2022 at Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex in Tehran, Iran, were enrolled. All patients were actively followed based on clinicopathologic and operative data. RESULTS: A total of 248 patients with a median follow-up time of 46 months (Range, 12 to 122) were studied. Eighty-six patients (35.0%) underwent major hepatectomy, whereas 160 (65.0%) underwent minor hepatectomy. The median overall survival was 43 months (Range, 0 to 122 months), with estimated 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates of 91%, 56%, and 42%, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a metastasis size > 6 cm, major hepatectomy, rectum as the primary tumor site, and involved margin (< 1 mm) were independent factors associated with decreased overall survival (OS). CONCLUSION: Surgical resection is an effective treatment for patients with CRLM that is associated with relatively favorable survival. A negative margin of 1 mm seems to be sufficient for oncological resection.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Hepatectomía , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Humanos , Neoplasias Hepáticas/secundario , Neoplasias Hepáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Hepáticas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/mortalidad , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Masculino , Femenino , Hepatectomía/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Irán/epidemiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Adulto , Tasa de Supervivencia , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios de Seguimiento , Resultado del Tratamiento , MetastasectomíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND RECENT FINDINGS: Gastric cancer (GC) has been known as one of the most common causes of cancer mortality both in Western and Eastern countries. However, there might be differences between how it is managed in different countries. Thus, we aimed to investigate these differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The most well-known clinical guidelines in field of GC management including Korean GC Association (KGCA), Japanese GC Association (JGCA), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), and National Institute for health and Care Excellence (NICE) have been reviewed. RESULTS: The contents of these guidelines were categorized under eight headings including (1) genetic predisposition, (2) prevention, (3) management of gastric polyp, atrophy, dysplasia and metaplasia, (4) diagnosis, (5) pathology and molecular biology, (6) treatment, (7) supportive and palliative care, and (8) follow up. Difference in each section was discussed. CONCLUSION: Considering KGCA and JGCA as Eastern and NCCN, ESMO, BSG, and NICE as Western guidelines, it is revealed that both sets of guidelines share common practices such as prioritizing comprehensive diagnostic evaluations, personalizing treatment plans, and palliative care. However, main differences can be seen in treatment regimens, the adoption of newer therapies like immunotherapy, and the utilization of emerging techniques such as HIPEC. These differences reflect the diverse clinical landscapes, research focuses, and healthcare systems within these regions.