PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer and initially unresectable or not optimally resectable liver metastases, who were treated using the liver-first approach in the era of modern chemotherapy in Japan. METHODS: We analyzed and compared data retrospectively on patients with asymptomatic resectable colorectal cancer and initially unresectable or not optimally resectable liver metastases, who were treated either using the liver-first approach (n = 12, LF group) or the primary-first approach (n = 13, PF group). RESULTS: Both groups of patients completed their therapeutic plan and there was no mortality. Postoperative morbidity rates after primary resection and hepatectomy, and post-hepatectomy liver failure rate were comparable between the groups (p = 1.00, p = 0.91, and p = 0.55, respectively). Recurrence rates, median recurrence-free survival since the last operation, and 3-year overall survival rates from diagnosis were also comparable between the LF and PF groups (58.3 vs. 61.5 %, p = 0.87; 10.5 vs. 18.6 months, p = 0.57; and 87.5 vs. 82.5 %, p = 0.46, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The liver-first approach may be an appropriate treatment sequence without adversely affecting perioperative or survival outcomes for selected patients.
PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer and initially unresectable or not optimally resectable liver metastases, who were treated using the liver-first approach in the era of modern chemotherapy in Japan. METHODS: We analyzed and compared data retrospectively on patients with asymptomatic resectable colorectal cancer and initially unresectable or not optimally resectable liver metastases, who were treated either using the liver-first approach (n = 12, LF group) or the primary-first approach (n = 13, PF group). RESULTS: Both groups of patients completed their therapeutic plan and there was no mortality. Postoperative morbidity rates after primary resection and hepatectomy, and post-hepatectomy liver failure rate were comparable between the groups (p = 1.00, p = 0.91, and p = 0.55, respectively). Recurrence rates, median recurrence-free survival since the last operation, and 3-year overall survival rates from diagnosis were also comparable between the LF and PF groups (58.3 vs. 61.5 %, p = 0.87; 10.5 vs. 18.6 months, p = 0.57; and 87.5 vs. 82.5 %, p = 0.46, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The liver-first approach may be an appropriate treatment sequence without adversely affecting perioperative or survival outcomes for selected patients.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gunnar Folprecht; Thomas Gruenberger; Wolf O Bechstein; Hans-Rudolf Raab; Florian Lordick; Jörg T Hartmann; Hauke Lang; Andrea Frilling; Jan Stoehlmacher; Jürgen Weitz; Ralf Konopke; Christian Stroszczynski; Torsten Liersch; Detlev Ockert; Thomas Herrmann; Eray Goekkurt; Fabio Parisi; Claus-Henning Köhne Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-11-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245