Resection of liver metastases from a colorectal carcinoma does not benefit the patient.

This paper presents arguments for and against the motion that 'Resection of liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma does not benefit the patient'. The case for this proposition is summarised as follows: survival after resection of small metastases is not markedly different from the natural history of similar tumours; patients with metastases apparently localised to one area of the liver are uncommon, and thorough investigation further reduces the proportion of such patients; the operative mortality of liver resection has a significant adverse effect on survival after resection, and may cancel out the benefits of surgery, and finally the alternative non-operative methods of treating these patients may offer similar benefits to resection. The counter argument is simple: for a patient with liver metastases the only hope of eradication of liver disease lies in surgical resection. If this can be achieved then the prognosis is as good as for a similar primary tumour without liver metastases.