BACKGROUND: Two-stage hepatectomy has been proposed for patients with bilateral colorectal liver metastases. The present study assesses the feasibility and outcome of two-stage hepatectomy for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: From January 1994 to December 2008, 720 patients underwent liver resections at two institutions for colorectal liver metastases. The feasibility and outcomes of two-staged hepatectomies were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were eligible for the two-stage approach and both stages were completed in 35 patients (78%). Reasons for failure included disease progression (n= 7), poor performance status (n= 1) and death after the first stage (n= 2). Patients who completed both stages had significantly fewer lesions than patients who failed to complete the second stage (5 vs. 8; P= 0.02). No differences between the two groups were observed with regard to lesion size, receipt of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or presence of extrahepatic disease. Post-operative morbidity (24% vs. 26%; P= 0.9) and mortality (4% vs. 5%; P= 0.8) was similar between the first and second stages. Median overall survival was 16 months. Three-year survival was significantly worse for patients failing to complete both stages (18%) compared with patients completing both stages (58%) (P < 0.001). Similar survival rates were observed between patients who completed two-stage vs. patients treated with a planned single-stage hepatectomy (58% vs. 53%; P= 0.34). CONCLUSION: The two-stage strategy for colorectal liver metastases can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality. The second stage will not be feasible in 20-25% of patients. Patients who are able to complete the two-stage approach, however, may have long-term survival comparable to patients treated with a planned single-stage hepatectomy.
BACKGROUND: Two-stage hepatectomy has been proposed for patients with bilateral colorectal liver metastases. The present study assesses the feasibility and outcome of two-stage hepatectomy for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: From January 1994 to December 2008, 720 patients underwent liver resections at two institutions for colorectal liver metastases. The feasibility and outcomes of two-staged hepatectomies were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were eligible for the two-stage approach and both stages were completed in 35 patients (78%). Reasons for failure included disease progression (n= 7), poor performance status (n= 1) and death after the first stage (n= 2). Patients who completed both stages had significantly fewer lesions than patients who failed to complete the second stage (5 vs. 8; P= 0.02). No differences between the two groups were observed with regard to lesion size, receipt of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or presence of extrahepatic disease. Post-operative morbidity (24% vs. 26%; P= 0.9) and mortality (4% vs. 5%; P= 0.8) was similar between the first and second stages. Median overall survival was 16 months. Three-year survival was significantly worse for patients failing to complete both stages (18%) compared with patients completing both stages (58%) (P < 0.001). Similar survival rates were observed between patients who completed two-stage vs. patients treated with a planned single-stage hepatectomy (58% vs. 53%; P= 0.34). CONCLUSION: The two-stage strategy for colorectal liver metastases can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality. The second stage will not be feasible in 20-25% of patients. Patients who are able to complete the two-stage approach, however, may have long-term survival comparable to patients treated with a planned single-stage hepatectomy.
Authors: Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jean Emond; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Jacques Belghiti; Ravi S Chari; Steven M Strasberg Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: René Adam; Valérie Delvart; Gérard Pascal; Adrian Valeanu; Denis Castaing; Daniel Azoulay; Sylvie Giacchetti; Bernard Paule; Francis Kunstlinger; Odile Ghémard; Francis Levi; Henri Bismuth Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: K S Hughes; R Simon; S Songhorabodi; M A Adson; D M Ilstrup; J G Fortner; B J Maclean; J H Foster; J M Daly; D Fitzherbert Journal: Surgery Date: 1986-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Felix G Fernandez; Jeffrey A Drebin; David C Linehan; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Steven M Strasberg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Eddie K Abdalla; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Lee M Ellis; Vickie Ellis; Raphael Pollock; Kristine R Broglio; Kenneth Hess; Steven A Curley Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Cui Yang; Nuh N Rahbari; Sören Torge Mees; Felix Schaab; Moritz Koch; Jürgen Weitz; Christoph Reissfelder Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Skye C Mayo; Andrew D Shore; Hari Nathan; Barish H Edil; Kenzo Hirose; Robert A Anders; Christopher L Wolfgang; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Peter D Peng; Mark G van Vledder; Susan Tsai; Mechteld C de Jong; Martin Makary; Julie Ng; Barish H Edil; Christopher L Wolfgang; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Ihab Kamel; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 3.647