Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Ratio in Patients with Resected Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases and Less Than 12 Examined Lymph Nodes.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that lymph node ratio (LNR) has significantly better prognostic power than N-status in patients with colorectal cancer, in particular when the number of evaluated lymph nodes (LNs) was insufficient. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of LNR in patients with resected synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCLMs) and less than 12 examined LNs. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of patients with resected SCLMs was queried for patients with less than 12 LNs evaluated at the time of surgery. X-tile software was used to determine the LNR cutoff value able to divide the patients in two subgroups with distinct prognosis. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared by log-rank test. A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: A cutoff LNR value of 0.22 divided patients into Low-LNR group (35 patients) and High-LNR group (36 patients). Both OS and DFS rates were significantly higher in Low-LNR group than those in High-LNR group. Independent predictors of poor OS were High-LNR (HR: 2.841, 95% CI: 1.480-5.453, p value = 0.002), bilobar SCLMs (HR: 2.253, 95% CI: 1.144-4.437, p value = 0.019) and lack of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR: 2.702, 95% CI: 1.448-5.043, p value = 0.002), while the only independent predictor of poor DFS was High-LNR (HR: 2.531, 95% CI: 1.259-5.090, p value = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: LNR > 0.22 was independently associated with poor OS and DFS in patients with resected SCLMs and less than 12 evaluated LNs.

Influence of the Primary Tumor Location on the Pattern of Synchronous Metastatic Spread in Patients with Stage IV Colorectal Carcinoma, According to the 8 th Edition of the AJCC Staging System.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The correlations between primary tumor location (right colon cancer - RCC, left colon cancer - LCC and rectal cancer - RC) and the incidence of metastatic sites are scarce and divergent. The current study is the first which compares the pattern of metastatic distribution (M1a: metastasis to one organ/site, excluding peritoneum; M1b: two or more metastatic sites; M1c: peritoneal metastases) between RCC, LCC and RC, respectively. METHODS: All patients operated for colorectal cancer (CRC) between January 2006 and December 2015 were analyzed to assess the primary tumor location, the presence and site of synchronous metastases. Univariate analysis determined the statistical significance of association between each CRC location and the metastatic pattern. Multinomial logistical regression model compared the prevalence of each metastatic pattern for each CRC location. RESULTS: Out of 5,107 patients, 1,318 (25.80%) had metastases on the moment of CRC diagnosis. There were no statistically significant association between the metastatic pattern and the patients' gender (M1a, p=0.321; M1b, p=0.539; M1c, p=0.417, Chi-square) or patients' age (p=0.616 Mann-Whitney U-test). RC had a significant higher relative risk for M1a (RR of 1.437, p=0.014) and a lower relative risk for M1c (RR of 0.564, p=0.001), compared to LCC. On the contrary, compared with LCC, the RCC showed a significant lower relative risk for M1a (RR of 0.673, p=0.006) and a higher relative risk for M1c (RR of 1.834, p=0.0001). CONCLUSION: There is a strong correlation between the primary location of CRC and the pattern of the metastatic spread, with potential prognostic implications.

Resection of Concomitant Hepatic and Extrahepatic Metastases from Colorectal Cancer - A Worthwhile Operation?

Background: The benefit of hepatic resection in case of concomitant colorectal hepatic and extrahepatic metastases (CHEHMs) is still debatable. The purpose of this study is to assess the results of resection of hepatic and extrahepatic metastases in patients with CHEHMs in a high-volume center for both hepatobiliary and colorectal surgery and to identify prognostic factors that correlate with longer survival in these patients. METHOD: It was performed a retrospective analysis of 678 consecutive patients with liver resection for colorectal cancer metastases operated in a single Centre between April 1996 and March 2016. Among these, 73 patients presented CHEHMs. Univariate analysis was performed to identify the risk factors for overall survival (OS) in these patients. Results: There were 20 CHMs located at the lymphatic node level, 20 at the peritoneal level, 12 at the ovary and lung level, 12 presenting as local relapses and 9 other sites. 53 curative resections (R0) were performed. The difference in overall survival between the CHEHMs group and the CHMs group is statistically significant for the entire groups (p 0.0001), as well as in patients who underwent R0 resection (p 0.0001). In CHEHMs group, the OS was statistically significant higher in patients who underwent R0 resection vs. those with R1/R2 resection (p=0.004). Three variables were identified as prognostic factors for poor OS following univariate analysis: 4 or more hepatic metastases, major hepatectomy and the performance of operation during first period of the study (1996 - 2004). There was a tendency toward better OS in patients with ovarian or pulmonary location of extrahepatic disease, although the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In patients with concomitant hepatic and extrahepatic metastases, complete resection of metastatic burden significantly prolong survival. The patients with up to 4 liver metastases, resectable by minor hepatectomy benefit the most from this aggressive onco-surgical management.

Comparative Analysis between Simultaneous Resection and Staged Resection for Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases - A Single Center Experience on 300 Consecutive Patients.

Introduction: In synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCLMs), simultaneous resection (SR) of the primary tumor and liver metastases has not gained wide acceptance. Most authors prefer staged resections (SgR), especially in patients presenting rectal cancer or requiring major hepatectomy. Methods: Morbidity, mortality, survival rates and length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups of patients (SR vs. SgR). A subgroup analysis was performed for patients with similar characteristics (e.g. rectal tumor, major hepatectomy, bilobar metastases, metastatic lymph nodes, preoperative chemotherapy). Results: Between 1995 and 2016, SR was performed in 234 patients, while 66 patients underwent SgR. Comparative morbidity (41% vs. 31.8%, respectively, p = 0.1997), mortality (3.8% vs. 3%, respectively, p = 1) and overall survival rates (85.8%, 51.3% and 30% vs. 87%, 49.6% and 22.5%, at 1-, 3- and 5-years, respectively, p = 0.386) were similar between the SR and SgR group. Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients undergoing SR than SgR (15.11 ‚+- 8.60 vs. 19.42 ‚+- 7.36 days, respectively, p 0.0001). The characteristics of SR and SgR groups were similar, except the following parameters: rectal tumor (34.1% vs. 19.7%, respectively, p = 0.0245), metastatic lymph nodes (68.1% vs. 86.3%, respectively, p = 0.0383), bilobar liver metastases (22.6% vs. 37.8%, respectively, p = 0.0169), major hepatectomies (13.2% vs. 30.3%, respectively, p= 0.0025) and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (13.2% vs. 77.2%, respectively, p 0.0001). A comparative analysis of morbidity, mortality and survival rates between SR and SgR was performed for subgroups of patients presenting these parameters. In each of these subgroups, SR was associated with similar morbidity, mortality and survival rates compared with SgR (p value 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients with SCLMs, SR provides similar short-term and long-term outcomes as SgR, with a shorter hospital stay. Therefore, in most patients with SCLMs, SR might be considered the treatment of choice.