OBJECTIVE: To compare survival results after resection in patients with thoracic parenchymal metastatic disease versus non-parenchymal metastatic disease and to identify prognostic factors for survival. METHODS: From 1990 to 2002, we retrospectively studied 134 procedures performed on 93 patients (3-84 years old). There were 73 patients with parenchymal resection and 20 patients with non-parenchymal resection. Tumor histology was epithelial in 62 patients, sarcoma in 21 patients, and teratomas and melanoma in 6 and 4 patients, respectively. Sixty-five patients underwent a metastasectomy once, whereas 28 had their metastatic disease repeatedly resected. RESULTS: Follow-up was 100% complete with a mean time of 43 months (range 1-169). In-hospital mortality was 2.2% (3/134 procedures) and major morbidity 5.5%. Median survival was 39 months (95% CI: 21-56 months). Overall, the actuarial survival at 1, 3, and 5 years were 84%, 55%, and 44%, respectively. For the entire group, by univariate analysis, among the 13 predictor variables selected, only the number of metastases (Hazard Ratio (HR)=3.4 [95% CI: 1.9-6.1]) and completeness of resection (HR=2.3 [95% CI: 1.3-4.2]) were found to be significant for death whereas repeated metastasectomy was found to be a significant predictor for survival (HR=0.25 [95% CI: 0.12-0.55]). In the group of parenchymal metastatic disease, a size greater than 3cm was a predictor for death (HR=2 [95% CI: 1.1-3.7]). In the subgroup of patients with colorectal metastasis, bilateral disease was also found to be a significant predictor for death (HR=3.6, [95% CI: 1.2-11.1]). CONCLUSION: This study supports our current aggressive approach to metastatic thoracic disease. Indeed, patient's survival is improved while a low mortality and morbidity is achieved. The most beneficial impact on long-term survival is correlated to the completeness of the surgery whereas the increasing number and size of the metastasis inversely correlate with survival.
OBJECTIVE: To compare survival results after resection in patients with thoracic parenchymal metastatic disease versus non-parenchymal metastatic disease and to identify prognostic factors for survival. METHODS: From 1990 to 2002, we retrospectively studied 134 procedures performed on 93 patients (3-84 years old). There were 73 patients with parenchymal resection and 20 patients with non-parenchymal resection. Tumor histology was epithelial in 62 patients, sarcoma in 21 patients, and teratomas and melanoma in 6 and 4 patients, respectively. Sixty-five patients underwent a metastasectomy once, whereas 28 had their metastatic disease repeatedly resected. RESULTS: Follow-up was 100% complete with a mean time of 43 months (range 1-169). In-hospital mortality was 2.2% (3/134 procedures) and major morbidity 5.5%. Median survival was 39 months (95% CI: 21-56 months). Overall, the actuarial survival at 1, 3, and 5 years were 84%, 55%, and 44%, respectively. For the entire group, by univariate analysis, among the 13 predictor variables selected, only the number of metastases (Hazard Ratio (HR)=3.4 [95% CI: 1.9-6.1]) and completeness of resection (HR=2.3 [95% CI: 1.3-4.2]) were found to be significant for death whereas repeated metastasectomy was found to be a significant predictor for survival (HR=0.25 [95% CI: 0.12-0.55]). In the group of parenchymal metastatic disease, a size greater than 3cm was a predictor for death (HR=2 [95% CI: 1.1-3.7]). In the subgroup of patients with colorectal metastasis, bilateral disease was also found to be a significant predictor for death (HR=3.6, [95% CI: 1.2-11.1]). CONCLUSION: This study supports our current aggressive approach to metastatic thoracic disease. Indeed, patient's survival is improved while a low mortality and morbidity is achieved. The most beneficial impact on long-term survival is correlated to the completeness of the surgery whereas the increasing number and size of the metastasis inversely correlate with survival.