OBJECTIVE: To examine recurrence and survival rates for patients treated with hepatic resection only, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) plus resection or RFA only for colorectal liver metastases. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Thermal destruction techniques, particularly RFA, have been rapidly accepted into surgical practice in the last 5 years. Long-term survival data following treatment of colorectal liver metastasis using RFA with or without hepatic resection are lacking. METHODS: Data from 358 consecutive patients with colorectal liver metastases treated for cure with hepatic resection +/- RFA and 70 patients found at laparotomy to have liver-only disease but not to be candidates for potentially curative treatment were compared (1992-2002). RESULTS: Of 418 patients treated, 190 (45%) underwent resection only, 101 RFA + resection (24%), 57 RFA only (14%), and 70 laparotomy with biopsy only or arterial infusion pump placement ("chemotherapy only," 17%). RFA was used in operative candidates who could not undergo complete resection of disease. Overall recurrence was most common after RFA (84% vs. 64% RFA + resection vs. 52% resection only, P < 0.001). Liver-only recurrence after RFA was fourfold the rate after resection (44% vs. 11% of patients, P < 0.001), and true local recurrence was most common after RFA (9% of patients vs. 5% RFA + resection vs. 2% resection only, P = 0.02). Overall survival rate was highest after resection (58% at 5 years); 4-year survival after resection, RFA + resection and RFA only were 65%, 36%, and 22%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Survival for "unresectable" patients treated with RFA + resection or RFA only was greater than chemotherapy only (P = 0.0017). CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic resection is the treatment of choice for colorectal liver metastases. RFA alone or in combination with resection for unresectable patients does not provide survival comparable to resection, and provides survival only slightly superior to nonsurgical treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To examine recurrence and survival rates for patients treated with hepatic resection only, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) plus resection or RFA only for colorectal liver metastases. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Thermal destruction techniques, particularly RFA, have been rapidly accepted into surgical practice in the last 5 years. Long-term survival data following treatment of colorectal liver metastasis using RFA with or without hepatic resection are lacking. METHODS: Data from 358 consecutive patients with colorectal liver metastases treated for cure with hepatic resection +/- RFA and 70 patients found at laparotomy to have liver-only disease but not to be candidates for potentially curative treatment were compared (1992-2002). RESULTS: Of 418 patients treated, 190 (45%) underwent resection only, 101 RFA + resection (24%), 57 RFA only (14%), and 70 laparotomy with biopsy only or arterial infusion pump placement ("chemotherapy only," 17%). RFA was used in operative candidates who could not undergo complete resection of disease. Overall recurrence was most common after RFA (84% vs. 64% RFA + resection vs. 52% resection only, P < 0.001). Liver-only recurrence after RFA was fourfold the rate after resection (44% vs. 11% of patients, P < 0.001), and true local recurrence was most common after RFA (9% of patients vs. 5% RFA + resection vs. 2% resection only, P = 0.02). Overall survival rate was highest after resection (58% at 5 years); 4-year survival after resection, RFA + resection and RFA only were 65%, 36%, and 22%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Survival for "unresectable" patients treated with RFA + resection or RFA only was greater than chemotherapy only (P = 0.0017). CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic resection is the treatment of choice for colorectal liver metastases. RFA alone or in combination with resection for unresectable patients does not provide survival comparable to resection, and provides survival only slightly superior to nonsurgical treatment.
Authors: R Adam; E Avisar; A Ariche; S Giachetti; D Azoulay; D Castaing; F Kunstlinger; F Levi; F Bismuth Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: T de Baere; D Elias; C Dromain; M G Din; V Kuoch; M Ducreux; V Boige; N Lassau; V Marteau; P Lasser; A Roche Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S N Goldberg; G S Gazelle; L Solbiati; T Livraghi; K K Tanabe; P F Hahn; P R Mueller Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: G D Dodd; M C Soulen; R A Kane; T Livraghi; W R Lees; Y Yamashita; A R Gillams; O I Karahan; H Rhim Journal: Radiographics Date: 2000 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: S A Curley; F Izzo; P Delrio; L M Ellis; J Granchi; P Vallone; F Fiore; S Pignata; B Daniele; F Cremona Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jan Franko; Qian Shi; Charles D Goldman; Barbara A Pockaj; Garth D Nelson; Richard M Goldberg; Henry C Pitot; Axel Grothey; Steven R Alberts; Daniel J Sargent Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sadia Tasleem; Jarlath C Bolger; Michael E Kelly; Michael R Boland; Dermot Bowden; Karl J Sweeney; Carmel Malone Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Bruno C Odisio; Suguru Yamashita; Steven Y Huang; Scott E Kopetz; Kamran Ahrar; Takashi Mizuno; Claudius Conrad; Thomas A Aloia; Yun Shin Chun; Sanjay Gupta; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Yoshikuni Kawaguchi; Heather A Lillemoe; Elena Panettieri; Yun Shin Chun; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Thomas A Aloia; Scott Kopetz; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 6.113