INTRODUCTION: The computed tomography (CT) morphology after chemotherapy is reportedly correlated with the histopathologic response to chemotherapy and a better surgical outcome in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). However, the true prognostic advantage of CT morphology remains uncertain. METHODS: The prognostic advantage of CT morphology was validated in 86 patients who underwent surgical resection for CLM after undergoing a 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimen with or without bevacizumab. RESULTS: An optimal morphologic response was observed in 18 (22.8%) patients, and a strong correlation between the CT morphology and tumor viability was confirmed (P < 0.001). A multivariate analysis revealed that bevacizumab (odds ratio [OR], 6.8; P = 0.03) and chemotherapy cycles ≥6 (OR, 3.6; P = 0.04) were associated with an optimal morphologic response. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were also predicted by CT morphology with a higher sensitivity. Particularly, a group 1 morphology was associated with a higher OS rate (3-year OS 100%) and RFS rate (3-year RFS, 57.0%), and a multivariate analysis confirmed that group 2 and group 3 tumor morphology was a significant predictive factor for tumor recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; P = 0.03 and HR, 3.2; P < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: The CT morphology of CLM predicts tumor viability and long-term surgical outcomes after chemotherapy.
INTRODUCTION: The computed tomography (CT) morphology after chemotherapy is reportedly correlated with the histopathologic response to chemotherapy and a better surgical outcome in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). However, the true prognostic advantage of CT morphology remains uncertain. METHODS: The prognostic advantage of CT morphology was validated in 86 patients who underwent surgical resection for CLM after undergoing a 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimen with or without bevacizumab. RESULTS: An optimal morphologic response was observed in 18 (22.8%) patients, and a strong correlation between the CT morphology and tumor viability was confirmed (P < 0.001). A multivariate analysis revealed that bevacizumab (odds ratio [OR], 6.8; P = 0.03) and chemotherapy cycles ≥6 (OR, 3.6; P = 0.04) were associated with an optimal morphologic response. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were also predicted by CT morphology with a higher sensitivity. Particularly, a group 1 morphology was associated with a higher OS rate (3-year OS 100%) and RFS rate (3-year RFS, 57.0%), and a multivariate analysis confirmed that group 2 and group 3 tumor morphology was a significant predictive factor for tumor recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; P = 0.03 and HR, 3.2; P < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: The CT morphology of CLM predicts tumor viability and long-term surgical outcomes after chemotherapy.
Authors: Hector H Li Chang; W Robert Leeper; Gabriel Chan; Douglas Quan; David Kevin Driman Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: George A Poultsides; Fei Bao; Elliot L Servais; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Ronald P DeMatteo; Peter J Allen; Yuman Fong; Nancy E Kemeny; Leonard B Saltz; David S Klimstra; William R Jarnagin; Jinru Shia; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Junichi Shindoh; Evelyne M Loyer; Scott Kopetz; Piyaporn Boonsirikamchai; Dipen M Maru; Yun Shin Chun; Giuseppe Zimmitti; Steven A Curley; Chusilp Charnsangavej; Thomas A Aloia; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Leonard B Saltz; Stephen Clarke; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Werner Scheithauer; Arie Figer; Ralph Wong; Sheryl Koski; Mikhail Lichinitser; Tsai-Shen Yang; Fernando Rivera; Felix Couture; Florin Sirzén; Jim Cassidy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dan G Blazer; Yoji Kishi; Dipen M Maru; Scott Kopetz; Yun Shin Chun; Michael J Overman; David Fogelman; Cathy Eng; David Z Chang; Huamin Wang; Daria Zorzi; Dario Ribero; Lee M Ellis; Katrina Y Glover; Robert A Wolff; Steven A Curley; Eddie K Abdalla; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sith Sathornsumetee; Yiting Cao; Jennifer E Marcello; James E Herndon; Roger E McLendon; Annick Desjardins; Henry S Friedman; Mark W Dewhirst; James J Vredenburgh; Jeremy N Rich Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Axel Grothey; Eric E Hedrick; Robert D Mass; Somnath Sarkar; Sam Suzuki; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Herbert I Hurwitz; Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nina J Wesdorp; Ruby Kemna; Jaap Stoker; Geert Kazemier; Karen Bolhuis; Jan H T M van Waesberghe; Irene M G C Nota; Femke Struik; Ikrame Oulad Abdennabi; Saffire S K S Phoa; Susan van Dieren; Martinus J van Amerongen; Thiery Chapelle; Cornelis H C Dejong; Marc R W Engelbrecht; Michael F Gerhards; Dirk Grünhagen; Thomas M van Gulik; John J Hermans; Koert P de Jong; Joost M Klaase; Mike S L Liem; Krijn P van Lienden; I Quintus Molenaar; Gijs A Patijn; Arjen M Rijken; Theo M Ruers; Cornelis Verhoef; Johannes H W de Wilt; Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg; Cornelis J A Punt; Joost Huiskens Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2022-05