IMPORTANCE: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the liver-first approach to the management of patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases. OBJECTIVE: To review current evidence for the liver-first approach to the management of patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases. EVIDENCE REVIEW: PubMed, EMBASE, the Science Citation Index, the Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and the Derwent Innovations Index were searched for the period from January 2000 to May 2012 using terms describing colorectal cancer, liver metastases, and surgery. A predefined protocol for data extraction was used to retrieve data on the design of each study including demographic profile, distribution of primary and hepatic metastatic disease, management of chemotherapy, surgery, the sequence of intervention, disease progression, the numbers completing treatment algorithm, and outcome and survival. FINDINGS: The literature search identified 417 articles, of which 4 cohort study reports described the liver-first approach and reported survival data. There was good agreement between studies on the sequence of treatment using the liver-first approach. The preferred algorithm was systemic chemotherapy, followed by liver resection, then chemoradiotherapy for those patients with rectal lesions, and colorectal resection as the last operative step. Two protocols provided further adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal resection. Of 121 patients starting treatment, 90 (74%) completed the specified treatment protocol. Disease progression during the protocol period occurred in 23 patients (19%). There was wide variation in survival despite apparently similar protocols. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The liver-first approach for patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases is possible but is associated with a wide range of survival outcomes, despite protocol similarities between studies. There is a need for a well-designed clinical trial comparing this liver-first approach with the classic (bowel-first) approach.
IMPORTANCE: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the liver-first approach to the management of patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases. OBJECTIVE: To review current evidence for the liver-first approach to the management of patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases. EVIDENCE REVIEW: PubMed, EMBASE, the Science Citation Index, the Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and the Derwent Innovations Index were searched for the period from January 2000 to May 2012 using terms describing colorectal cancer, liver metastases, and surgery. A predefined protocol for data extraction was used to retrieve data on the design of each study including demographic profile, distribution of primary and hepatic metastatic disease, management of chemotherapy, surgery, the sequence of intervention, disease progression, the numbers completing treatment algorithm, and outcome and survival. FINDINGS: The literature search identified 417 articles, of which 4 cohort study reports described the liver-first approach and reported survival data. There was good agreement between studies on the sequence of treatment using the liver-first approach. The preferred algorithm was systemic chemotherapy, followed by liver resection, then chemoradiotherapy for those patients with rectal lesions, and colorectal resection as the last operative step. Two protocols provided further adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal resection. Of 121 patients starting treatment, 90 (74%) completed the specified treatment protocol. Disease progression during the protocol period occurred in 23 patients (19%). There was wide variation in survival despite apparently similar protocols. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The liver-first approach for patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases is possible but is associated with a wide range of survival outcomes, despite protocol similarities between studies. There is a need for a well-designed clinical trial comparing this liver-first approach with the classic (bowel-first) approach.
Authors: Alban Zarzavadjian Le Bian; Nicolas Tabchouri; Mostefa Bennamoun; Christophe Louvet; Candice Tubbax; Anthony Sarran; Marine Lefevre; Marc Beaussier; Frédéric Pamoukdjian; Philippe Wind; Brice Gayet; David Fuks Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Susanne Merkel; Vera S Schellerer; Axel Wein; Sabine Semrau; Carol Geppert; Jonas Göhl; Werner Hohenberger; Klaus Weber; Robert Grützmann Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Ajith K Siriwardena; James M Mason; Saifee Mullamitha; Helen C Hancock; Santhalingam Jegatheeswaran Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 66.675