Local Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases in the Presence of Extrahepatic Disease: Survival Outcomes from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE).

BACKGROUND: The simultaneous presence of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) and extrahepatic metastases in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) can be considered a relative contraindication for local treatment with curative intent. This study aims to assess the survival outcomes of patients with CRLMs and extrahepatic metastases after comprehensive local treatment of all metastatic sites. METHODS: Patients with CRLMs who received local treatment of all metastatic sites were extracted from the prospective AmCORE registry database and subdivided into two groups: CRLM only vs. CRLM and extrahepatic metastasis. To address potential confounders, multivariate analysis was performed. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 881 patients with CRLM only and 60 with CRLM and extrahepatic disease were included, and the median OS was 55.7 months vs. 42.7 months, respectively. Though OS was significantly lower in patients with concomitant extrahepatic metastases (HR 1.477; 95% CI 1.029-2.121; p = 0.033), the survival curve plateaued after 6.2 years. Extrahepatic manifestations were pulmonary (43.3%), peritoneal (16.7%) and non-regional lymph node metastases (10.0%). In patients with pulmonary and non-regional lymph node metastases, OS did not significantly differ from patients with CRLM-only disease; concomitant peritoneal metastases showed an inferior OS (HR 1.976; 95% CI 1.017-3.841, p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative series, OS was inferior for patients with multi-organ metastatic CRC versus patients with CRLMs alone. Nonetheless, the long-term survival curve plateau seemed to justify local treatment in a subset of patients with multi-organ metastatic CRC, especially for patients with CRLMs and pulmonary or lymph node metastases.

Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases: Upfront Local Treatment versus Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy Followed by Local Treatment (COLLISION RELAPSE): Study Protocol of a Phase III Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The objective of the COLLISION RELAPSE trial is to prove or disprove superiority of neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment (either thermal ablation and/or surgical resection), compared to repeat local treatment alone, in patients with at least one recurrent locally treatable CRLM within one year and no extrahepatic disease. METHODS: A total of 360 patients will be included in this phase III, multicentre randomized controlled trial. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are distant progression-free survival, local tumour progression-free survival analysed per patient and per tumour, systemic therapy-related toxicity, procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, pain assessment and quality of life, cost-effectiveness ratio and quality-adjusted life years. DISCUSSION: If the addition of neoadjuvant systemic therapy to repeat local treatment of CRLM proves to be superior compared to repeat local treatment alone, this may lead to a prolonged life expectancy and increased disease-free survival at the cost of possible systemic therapy-related side effects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, phase III randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05861505. May 17, 2023.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Undergoing Systemic Therapy With or Without Maximal Tumor Debulking.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining a sufficient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important in the palliative treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The ORCHESTRA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01792934) is designed to prospectively evaluate overall survival benefit and impact on HRQoL of tumor debulking when added to first-line palliative systemic therapy in patients with multiorgan mCRC. In the present study, we report the HRQoL associated with this combination treatment compared with standard systemic therapy. METHODS: Patients included in the ORCHESTRA trial with clinical benefit after 3 or 4 cycles of first-line palliative systemic therapy with fluoropyrimidines and oxaliplatin with or without bevacizumab were randomly assigned to maximal tumor debulking followed by systemic therapy versus systemic therapy alone. Patients completed the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 and the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory questionnaire at prespecified time points during treatment. Between-group differences in HRQoL over time were evaluated with linear mixed model analyses. A pattern mixture approach was applied to correct for missing questionnaires due to progressive disease. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were randomized to the intervention arm (n=148) or the standard arm (n=152). No statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in HRQoL and fatigue were observed when tumor debulking was added to systemic therapy. In patients of both study arms, HRQoL after 1 year of treatment was not significantly different from HRQoL at the time of randomization. Patients in the intervention arm experienced serious adverse events (SAEs) twice as often as patients in the standard arm (P≤.001). CONCLUSIONS: Maximal tumor debulking in combination with palliative systemic therapy in patients with multiorgan mCRC was significantly associated with more SAEs resulting from local therapy but no difference in HRQoL compared with palliative systemic therapy alone. There is a remarkable lack of association between the occurrence of SAEs and impact on HRQoL.

Efficacy of Thermal Ablation for Small-Size (0-3 cm) versus Intermediate-Size (3-5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE).

PURPOSE: Thermal ablation is widely recognized as the standard of care for small-size unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). For larger CRLM safety, local control and overall efficacy are not well established and insufficiently validated. The purpose of this comparative series was to analyze outcomes for intermediate-size versus small-size CRLM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients treated with thermal ablation between December 2000 and November 2021 for small-size and intermediate-size CRLM were included. The primary endpoints were complication rate and local control (LC). Secondary endpoints included local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 59 patients were included in the intermediate-size (3-5 cm) group and 221 in the small-size (0-3 cm) group. Complications were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.546). No significant difference between the groups was found in an overall comparison of OS (HR 1.339; 95% CI 0.824-2.176; p = 0.239). LTPFS (HR 3.388; p < 0.001) and LC (HR 3.744; p = 0.004) were superior in the small-size group. Nevertheless, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year LC for intermediate-size CRLM was still 93.9%, 85.4%, and 81.5%, and technical efficacy improved over time. CONCLUSIONS: Thermal ablation for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM is safe and induces long-term LC in the vast majority. The results of the COLLISION-XL trial (unresectable colorectal liver metastases: stereotactic body radiotherapy versus microwave ablation-a phase II randomized controlled trial for CRLM 3-5 cm) are required to provide further clarification of the role of local ablative methods for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM.

Unresectable Intermediate-Size (3-5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy Versus Microwave Ablation (COLLISION-XL): Protocol of a Phase II/III Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although microwave ablation (MWA) has a low complication rate and good efficacy for small-size (≤ 3 cm) colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), local control decreases with increasing size. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is gaining interest as a potential means to treat intermediate-size CRLM and might be less susceptible to increasing volume. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of MWA to SBRT in patients with unresectable, intermediate-size (3-5 cm) CRLM. METHODS: In this two-arm, multicentre phase II/ III randomized controlled trial, 68 patients with 1-3 unresectable, intermediate-size CRLM suitable for both MWA and SBRT, will be included. Patients will be treated with MWA or SBRT as randomised. The Primary endpoint is local tumour progression-free survival (LTPFS) at 1 year (intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall survival, overall and distant progression-free survival (DPFS), local control (LC) and procedural morbidity and mortality and assessment of pain and quality of life. DISCUSSION: Current guidelines lack clear recommendations for the local treatment of liver only intermediate-size, unresectable CRLM and studies comparing curative intent SBRT and thermal ablation are scarce. Although safety and feasibility to eradicate tumours ≤ 5 cm have been established, both techniques suffer from lower LTPFS and LC rates for larger-size tumours. For the treatment of unresectable intermediate-size CRLM clinical equipoise has been reached. We have designed a two-armed phase II/ III randomized controlled trial directly comparing SBRT to MWA for unresectable CRLM 3-5 cm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, phase II/ III Randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04081168, September 9th 2019.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in older patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In trials evaluating perioperative chemotherapy for gastric cancer, which serve as the basis for treatment guidelines, patients are selected. The generalizability of these trial findings to older patients is uncertain. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study compared the survival outcomes of patients ≥ 75 years with gastric adenocarcinoma treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 2015 and 2019. Additionally, the percentage of patients < 75 years and ≥ 75 years who did not proceeded to surgery after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were examined. RESULTS: A total of 1995 patients, of whom 1249 aged < 75 years and 746 aged ≥ 75 years, were included. In the group of patients ≥ 75 years, 275 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 471 patients were directly scheduled for gastrectomy. Patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy differed significantly from one and another in characteristics. Overall survival of patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not significantly different (median 34.9 vs. 32.3 months; P = 0.506), also after adjusting for potential confounders (HR 0.87; P = 0.263). Of patients ≥ 75 years who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 43 (15.6%) did not proceed to surgery compared to 111 (8.9%) patients < 75 years (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without chemotherapy were highly selected, and overall survival was not significantly different between both groups. Nonetheless, the proportion of patients who did not proceed to surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy was higher in patients ≥ 75 years compared to patients < 75 years. Therefore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered with more caution in patients ≥ 75 years, while identifying those who may benefit.

Improved Outcomes of Thermal Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A 10-Year Analysis from the Prospective Amsterdam CORE Registry (AmCORE).

BACKGROUND: To analyze long-term oncological outcomes of open and percutaneous thermal ablation in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: This assessment from a prospective, longitudinal tumor registry included 329 patients who underwent 541 procedures for 1350 CRLM from January 2010 to February 2021. Three cohorts were formed: 2010-2013 (129 procedures [53 percutaneous]), 2014-2017 (206 procedures [121 percutaneous]) and 2018-2021 (206 procedures [135 percutaneous]). Local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and overall survival (OS) data were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Potential confounding factors were analyzed with uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: LTPFS improved significantly over time for percutaneous ablations (2-year LTPFS 37.7% vs. 69.0% vs. 86.3%, respectively, P < .0001), while LTPFS for open ablations remained reasonably stable (2-year LTPFS 87.1% [2010-2013], vs. 92.7% [2014-2017] vs. 90.2% [2018-2021], P = .12). In the latter cohort (2018-2021), the open approach was no longer superior regarding LTPFS (P = .125). No differences between the three cohorts were found regarding OS (P = .088), length of hospital stay (open approach, P = .065; percutaneous approach, P = .054), and rate and severity of complications (P = .404). The rate and severity of complications favored the percutaneous approach in all three cohorts (P = .002). CONCLUSION: Over the last 10 years efficacy of percutaneous ablations has improved remarkably for the treatment of CRLM. Oncological outcomes seem to have reached results following open ablation. Given its minimal invasive character and shorter length of hospital stay, whenever feasible, percutaneous procedures may be favored over an open approach.

Outcomes of Combined Peritoneal and Local Treatment for Patients with Peritoneal and Limited Liver Metastases of Colorectal Origin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Almost half of all colorectal cancer (CRC) patients will experience metastases at some point, and in the majority of cases, multiple organs will be involved. If the peritoneum is involved in addition to the liver, the current guideline-driven treatment options are limited. The reported overall survival ranges from 6 to 13 months for the current standard of care (systemic treatment). This study aimed to evaluate morbidity and clinical long-term outcomes from a combined local treatment of hepatic metastases with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) used to treat peritoneal metastases. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase.com, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Studies evaluating the clinicopathologic data of patients who had both peritoneal and hepatic metastases treated with CRS-HIPEC were included provided sufficient data on the primary outcomes (overall and disease-free survival) were presented. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). RESULTS: Patients treated for peritoneal and liver metastases (PMLM group) had a pooled mean survival of 26.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.4-30.4 months), with a 3-year survival rate of 34% (95% CI 26.7-42.0%) and a 5-year survival rate of 25% (95% CI 17.3-33.8%). Surgical complications occurred more frequently for these patients than for those with peritoneal metastasis only (40% vs 22%; p = 0.0014), but the mortality and reoperation rates did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed that CRS and HIPEC combined with local treatment of limited liver metastasis for selected patients is feasible, although with increased morbidity and an association with a long-term survival rate of 25%, which is unlikely to be achievable with systemic treatment only.

Repeat Local Treatment of Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases, the Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: An Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) Based Study.

This cohort study aimed to evaluate efficacy, safety, and survival outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by repeat local treatment compared to upfront repeat local treatment of recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). A total of 152 patients with 267 tumors from the prospective Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) met the inclusion criteria. Two cohorts of patients with recurrent CRLM were compared: patients who received chemotherapy prior to repeat local treatment (32 patients) versus upfront repeat local treatment (120 patients). Data from May 2002 to December 2020 were collected. Results on the primary endpoint overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and distant progression-free survival (DPFS) were reviewed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Subsequently, uni- and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models, accounting for potential confounders, were estimated. Additionally, subgroup analyses, according to patient, initial and repeat local treatment characteristics, were conducted. Procedure-related complications and length of hospital stay were compared using chi-square test and Fisher's exact test. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS from date of diagnosis of recurrent disease was 98.6%, 72.5%, and 47.7% for both cohorts combined. The crude survival analysis did not reveal a significant difference in OS between the two cohorts (p = 0.834), with 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS of 100.0%, 73.2%, and 57.5% for the NAC group and 98.2%, 72.3%, and 45.3% for the upfront repeat local treatment group, respectively. After adjusting for two confounders, comorbidities (p = 0.010) and primary tumor location (p = 0.023), the corrected HR in multivariable analysis was 0.839 (95% CI, 0.416-1.691; p = 0.624). No differences between the two cohorts were found with regards to LTPFS (HR = 0.662; 95% CI, 0.249-1.756; p = 0.407) and DPFS (HR = 0.798; 95% CI, 0.483-1.318; p = 0.378). No heterogeneous treatment effects were detected in subgroup analyses according to patient, disease, and treatment characteristics. No significant difference was found in periprocedural complications (p = 0.843) and median length of hospital stay (p = 0.600) between the two cohorts. Chemotherapy-related toxicity was reported in 46.7% of patients. Adding NAC prior to repeat local treatment did not improve OS, LTPFS, or DPFS, nor did it affect periprocedural morbidity or length of hospital stay. The results of this comparative assessment do not substantiate the routine use of NAC prior to repeat local treatment of CRLM. Because the exact role of NAC (in different subgroups) remains inconclusive, we are currently designing a phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT), COLLISION RELAPSE trial, directly comparing upfront repeat local treatment (control) to neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment (intervention).

Thermal Ablation versus Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy to Treat Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comparative Analysis from the Prospective Amsterdam CORE Registry.

Thermal ablation and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) are techniques to eradicate colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study compares the safety, efficacy and long-term oncological outcomes of these treatment methods. All prospectively registered patients (AmCORE registry) treated with thermal ablation or SABR alone for unresectable CRLM between 2007 and 2020 were analyzed using multivariate Cox-proportional hazard regression. In total 199 patients were included for analysis: 144 (400 CRLM) thermal ablation; 55 (69 CRLM) SABR. SABR patients were characterized by older age (p = 0.006), extrahepatic disease at diagnosis (p = 0.004) and larger tumors (p < 0.001). Thermal ablation patients were more likely to have synchronous disease, higher clinical risk scores (p = 0.030) and higher numbers of CRLMs treated (p < 0.001). Mortality was zero and morbidity low in both groups: no serious adverse events were recorded following SABR (n = 0/55) and nine (n = 9/144 [6.3%]; all CTCAE grade 3) after thermal ablation. SABR was associated with an inferior overall survival (OS) (median OS 53.0 months vs. 27.4 months; HR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.12-1.49; p = 0.003), local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) per-tumor (HR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.01-1.52; p = 0.044) and local control per-patient (HR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.20-2.04; p = 0.001) and per-tumor (HR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.44-2.49; p < 0.001). In this study thermal ablation was superior to SABR with regard to OS, LTPFS and local control, albeit at the cost of a limited risk of serious adverse events. Further studies are required to assess whether the worse outcomes following SABR were the effect of true differences in ablative treatment or a result of residual confounding.