Surgical strategy for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver and extrahepatic metastases: A scoring system and decision tree model.

BACKGROUND: The role of hepatectomy in a specific group of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastases (SCRLM) and synchronous extrahepatic disease (SEHD) is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of liver surgery and define the selection criteria for surgical candidates in patients with SCRLM + SEHD. METHODS: Between July 2007 and October 2018, 475 patients with colorectal cancer with liver metastases (CRLM) who underwent liver resection were retrospectively reviewed. Sixty-five patients with SCRLM + SEHD were identified and included in the study. Clinical pathological data of these patients were analyzed to evaluate the influence on survival. Important prognostic factors were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. The risk score system and decision tree analysis were generated according to the important prognostic factors for better patient selection. RESULTS: The 5-year survival rate of patients with SCRLM + SEHD was 21.9%. The most important prognostic factors were SCRLM number of more than five, site of SEHD other than the lung only, inability to achieve SCRLM + SEHD R0 resection, and BRAF mutation of cancer cells. The proposed risk score system and decision tree model easily discriminated between patients with different survival rates and identified the profile of suitable surgical patients. CONCLUSION: Liver surgery should not be a contraindication for patients with SCRLM + SEHD. Patients with complete SCRLM + SEHD R0 resection, SCRLM number less than or equal to five, SEHD confined to the lung only, and wild-type BRAF could have favorable survival outcomes. The proposed scoring system and decision tree model may be beneficial to patient selection in clinical use.

Using a 'no drain' policy in 342 laparoscopic hepatectomies: which factors predict failure?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify factors that predict the failure of a 'no drain' policy in laparoscopic hepatectomy. METHODS: Surgical outcomes in 342 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy were reviewed. Drains were placed only for the following predefined criteria: (i) intraoperative bile leak; (ii) bilioenteric anastomosis, and (iii) increased risk for postoperative bleeding ('no drain' policy). Factors leading to need for postoperative drainage or reoperation were evaluated. RESULTS: Drains were placed in 44 patients (drainage group). Postoperatively, additional procedures were required in five (11.4%) patients in the drainage group and in 18 (6.0%) patients in the no-drainage group. Multivariate analysis suggested that blood loss of >400 ml [odds ratio (OR) 4.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41-14.2; P = 0.010] and preoperative chemotherapy (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 0.82-6.48; P = 0.120) may increase the risk for need for postoperative procedures when intraoperative prophylactic drainage is not used. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic drainage during liver resection should be considered not only in the presence of uncontrollable bile leak or concern for postoperative bleeding risk, but also in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those in whom intraoperative blood loss is >400 ml. Otherwise, a 'no drain' policy is safe and would enhance the advantages of minimally invasive liver surgery.