BACKGROUND AND AIM: Resection of colorectal liver metastases has become a standard of care, although the value of this procedure in non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine (NCRNNE) metastases remains controversial and is still a matter of debate. The aim of the study was to determine the utility of liver resection in the long-term outcome of patients with NCRNNE metastases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The records of 106 patients who underwent liver resection for NCRNNE metastases in the period 1989 to 2006 at 5 HPB Centers in Argentina were analyzed. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, type of resection, long-term outcome and prognostic factors were analyzed. Depending on primary tumor sites, a comparative analysis of survival was performed. RESULTS: Mean age was 54 (17-76). Hepatic metastases were solitary in 62.3% and unilateral in 85.6%. Primary tumor sites: Urogenital (37.7%), sarcomas (21.7%), breast (17.9%), gastrointestinal (6.6%), melanoma (5.7%), and others (10.4%). Fifty-one major hepatectomies and 55 minor resections were performed. Twenty patients underwent synchronous resections. An R0 resection could be achieved in 89.6%. Perioperative mortality was 1.8%. Overall, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates were 67%, 34%, and 19%, respectively. Survival was significantly longer for metastases of urogenital (p=0.0001) and breast (p=0.003) origin. Curative resections (p=0.04) and metachronous disease (p=0.0001) were predictors of better survival. CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection is an effective treatment for NCRNNE liver metastases; it gives satisfactory long-term survival especially in metachronous disease, in patients with metastases from urogenital and breast tumors and when R0 procedures can be performed.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Resection of colorectal liver metastases has become a standard of care, although the value of this procedure in non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine (NCRNNE) metastases remains controversial and is still a matter of debate. The aim of the study was to determine the utility of liver resection in the long-term outcome of patients with NCRNNE metastases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The records of 106 patients who underwent liver resection for NCRNNE metastases in the period 1989 to 2006 at 5 HPB Centers in Argentina were analyzed. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, type of resection, long-term outcome and prognostic factors were analyzed. Depending on primary tumor sites, a comparative analysis of survival was performed. RESULTS: Mean age was 54 (17-76). Hepatic metastases were solitary in 62.3% and unilateral in 85.6%. Primary tumor sites: Urogenital (37.7%), sarcomas (21.7%), breast (17.9%), gastrointestinal (6.6%), melanoma (5.7%), and others (10.4%). Fifty-one major hepatectomies and 55 minor resections were performed. Twenty patients underwent synchronous resections. An R0 resection could be achieved in 89.6%. Perioperative mortality was 1.8%. Overall, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates were 67%, 34%, and 19%, respectively. Survival was significantly longer for metastases of urogenital (p=0.0001) and breast (p=0.003) origin. Curative resections (p=0.04) and metachronous disease (p=0.0001) were predictors of better survival. CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection is an effective treatment for NCRNNE liver metastases; it gives satisfactory long-term survival especially in metachronous disease, in patients with metastases from urogenital and breast tumors and when R0 procedures can be performed.
Authors: Jürgen Weitz; Leslie H Blumgart; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin; Michael D'Angelica; Lawrence E Harrison; Ronald P DeMatteo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Y Takada; M Otsuka; K Seino; H Taniguchi; N Koike; T Kawamoto; K Koda; S Adachi; K Yuzawa; M Nozue; T Todoroki; K Fukao Journal: Hepatogastroenterology Date: 2001 Jan-Feb
Authors: D Elias; A Cavalcanti de Albuquerque; P Eggenspieler; B Plaud; M Ducreux; M Spielmann; C Theodore; S Bonvalot; P Lasser Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Dominique Elias; Franck Maisonnette; Michel Druet-Cabanac; Jean Francois Ouellet; Jean Marc Guinebretiere; Marc Spielmann; Suzette Delaloge Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Johannes Zacherl; Maximilian Zacherl; Christian Scheuba; Rudolf Steininger; Etienne Wenzl; Ferdinand Mühlbacher; Raimund Jakesz; Friedrich Längle Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Dayna P Y Sim; Brian K P Goh; Ser-Yee Lee; Chung-Yip Chan; Iain B H Tan; Peng-Chung Cheow; Premaraj Jeyaraj; Pierce K H Chow; London L P J Ooi; Alexander Y F Chung Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ravi Marudanayagam; Bynvant Sandhu; M Thamara P R Perera; Phillipe Taniere; Chris Coldham; Simon Bramhall; David Mayer; John Buckels; Darius Mirza Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Alex R Coffman; Daniel C Sufficool; Joseph I Kang; Chung-Tsen Hsueh; Sasha Swenson; Patrick Q McGee; Gayathri Nagaraj; Baldev Patyal; Mark E Reeves; Jerry D Slater; Gary Y Yang Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2021-08
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: Frederike A B Grimme; Maarten F J Seesing; Richard van Hillegersberg; Frits van Coevorden; Koert P de Jong; Iris D Nagtegaal; Cornelis Verhoef; Johannes H W de Wilt Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Eran Sadot; Ser Yee Lee; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Stephen B Solomon; Mithat Gönen; T Peter Kingham; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; William R Jarnagin; Clifford A Hudis; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 12.969