INTRODUCTION: One in ten patients with rectal cancer presents with synchronous colorectal liver metastases. We present an up-to-date review of the different surgical strategies available for rectal cancer patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases. METHOD: A literature review of MEDLINE, Cochrane and Google scholar was performed. RESULTS: Twenty retrospective studies comparing staged versus simultaneous resections were found. Overall survival was similar for both approaches whilst the length of stay was decreased in simultaneous resections. Only two studies comparing the 'reverse' versus staged or simultaneous resections were found. The studies investigating resection versus non-resection for rectal primaries with unresectable liver metastases were limited. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous resections are a reasonable alternative to staged resections for either advanced rectal cancers with limited liver disease or early rectal cancers with extensive liver disease. Currently, staged resections are favoured over simultaneous resections in patients with locally advanced rectal cancers with extensive liver disease. There are too few studies to determine the safety of reverse resections in the context of locally advanced rectal cancers. A resection of the primary tumour or a non-surgical intervention can be justified in the management of the rectal cancer primary in the presence of unresectable liver metastases.
INTRODUCTION: One in ten patients with rectal cancer presents with synchronous colorectal liver metastases. We present an up-to-date review of the different surgical strategies available for rectal cancerpatients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases. METHOD: A literature review of MEDLINE, Cochrane and Google scholar was performed. RESULTS: Twenty retrospective studies comparing staged versus simultaneous resections were found. Overall survival was similar for both approaches whilst the length of stay was decreased in simultaneous resections. Only two studies comparing the 'reverse' versus staged or simultaneous resections were found. The studies investigating resection versus non-resection for rectal primaries with unresectable liver metastases were limited. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous resections are a reasonable alternative to staged resections for either advanced rectal cancers with limited liver disease or early rectal cancers with extensive liver disease. Currently, staged resections are favoured over simultaneous resections in patients with locally advanced rectal cancers with extensive liver disease. There are too few studies to determine the safety of reverse resections in the context of locally advanced rectal cancers. A resection of the primary tumour or a non-surgical intervention can be justified in the management of the rectal cancer primary in the presence of unresectable liver metastases.
Authors: Luca Viganò; Mehdi Karoui; Alessandro Ferrero; Claude Tayar; Daniel Cherqui; Lorenzo Capussotti Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Sarah York Boostrom; Liana Tsikitis Vassiliki; David M Nagorney; Bruce G Wolff; Heidi K Chua; Scott Harmsen; David W Larson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Joseph Herman; Wells Messersmith; W Warren Suh; William Blackstock; Bard C Cosman; Mohammed Mohiuddin; Matthew M Poggi; William F Regine; Leonard Saltz; William Small; Jennifer Zook; Andre A Konski Journal: Curr Probl Cancer Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: René Adam; Gerard Pascal; Denis Castaing; Daniel Azoulay; Valerie Delvart; Bernard Paule; Francis Levi; Henri Bismuth Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: V R Konyalian; D K Rosing; J S Haukoos; M R Dixon; R Sinow; S Bhaheetharan; M J Stamos; R R Kumar Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.788