Dimitrios Moris1, Sean Ronnekleiv-Kelly2, Amir A Rahnemai-Azar3, Evangelos Felekouras4, Mary Dillhoff1, Carl Schmidt1, Timothy M Pawlik5,6. 1. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical center, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. 1st Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 5. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. tim.pawlik@osumc.edu. 6. Department of Surgery, The Urban Meyer III and Shelley Meyer Chair for Cancer Research, The Ohio State University, 395 W 12th Avenue, Suite 670, Columbus, OH, 43210-1267, USA. tim.pawlik@osumc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Colorectal liver metastases develop in 50% of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Surgical resection for colorectal liver metastasis typically involves either anatomical resection (AR) or parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH). The objective of the current study was to analyze data on parenchymal versus non-parenchymal-sparing hepatic resections for CLM. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature regarding parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy was performed. MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for publications containing the following medical subject headings (MeSH): "Colorectal Neoplasms," "Neoplasm Metastasis," "Liver Neoplasms" and "Hepatectomy". Besides, the following keywords were used to complete the literature search: "Hepatectomy," "liver resection," "hepatic resection," "anatomic/anatomical," "nonanatomic/ nonanatomical," "major," "minor," "limited," "wedge," "CRLM/CLM," and "colorectal liver metastasis." Data was reviewed, aggregated, and analyzed. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred five patients included in 12 studies who underwent either PSH (n = 1087 patients) or AR (n = 1418 patients) were identified. Most patients had a primary tumor that originated in the colon (PSH 52.2-74.4% vs. AR 53.9-74.3%) (P = 0.289). The majority of studies included a large subset of patients with only a solitary tumor with a reported median tumor number of 1-2 regardless of whether the patient underwent PSH or AR. Median EBL was no different among patients undergoing PSH (100-896 mL) versus AR (200-1489 mL) for CLM (P = 0.248). There was no difference in median length-of-stay following PSH (6-17 days) versus AR (7-15 days) (P = 0.747). While there was considerable inter-study variability regarding margin status, there was no difference in the incidence of R0 resection among patients undergoing PSH (66.7-100%) versus AR (71.6-98.6%) (P = 0.58). When assessing overall survival, there was no difference whether resection of CLM was performed with PSH (5 years OS: mean 44.7%, range 29-62%) or AR (5 years OS: mean 44.6%, range 27-64%) (P = 0.97). CONCLUSION: PSH had a comparable safety and efficacy profile compared with AR and did not compromise oncologic outcomes. PSH should be considered an appropriate surgical approach to treatment for patients with CLM that facilitates preservation of hepatic parenchyma.
INTRODUCTION:Colorectal liver metastases develop in 50% of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Surgical resection for colorectal liver metastasis typically involves either anatomical resection (AR) or parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH). The objective of the current study was to analyze data on parenchymal versus non-parenchymal-sparing hepatic resections for CLM. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature regarding parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy was performed. MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for publications containing the following medical subject headings (MeSH): "Colorectal Neoplasms," "Neoplasm Metastasis," "Liver Neoplasms" and "Hepatectomy". Besides, the following keywords were used to complete the literature search: "Hepatectomy," "liver resection," "hepatic resection," "anatomic/anatomical," "nonanatomic/ nonanatomical," "major," "minor," "limited," "wedge," "CRLM/CLM," and "colorectal liver metastasis." Data was reviewed, aggregated, and analyzed. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred five patients included in 12 studies who underwent either PSH (n = 1087 patients) or AR (n = 1418 patients) were identified. Most patients had a primary tumor that originated in the colon (PSH 52.2-74.4% vs. AR 53.9-74.3%) (P = 0.289). The majority of studies included a large subset of patients with only a solitary tumor with a reported median tumor number of 1-2 regardless of whether the patient underwent PSH or AR. Median EBL was no different among patients undergoing PSH (100-896 mL) versus AR (200-1489 mL) for CLM (P = 0.248). There was no difference in median length-of-stay following PSH (6-17 days) versus AR (7-15 days) (P = 0.747). While there was considerable inter-study variability regarding margin status, there was no difference in the incidence of R0 resection among patients undergoing PSH (66.7-100%) versus AR (71.6-98.6%) (P = 0.58). When assessing overall survival, there was no difference whether resection of CLM was performed with PSH (5 years OS: mean 44.7%, range 29-62%) or AR (5 years OS: mean 44.6%, range 27-64%) (P = 0.97). CONCLUSION: PSH had a comparable safety and efficacy profile compared with AR and did not compromise oncologic outcomes. PSH should be considered an appropriate surgical approach to treatment for patients with CLM that facilitates preservation of hepatic parenchyma.
Authors: Chusilp Charnsangavej; Bryan Clary; Yuman Fong; Axel Grothey; Timothy M Pawlik; Michael A Choti Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: B Cady; R L Jenkins; G D Steele; W D Lewis; M D Stone; W V McDermott; J M Jessup; A Bothe; P Lalor; E J Lovett; P Lavin; D C Linehan Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Zaed Z R Hamady; J Peter A Lodge; Fenella K Welsh; Giles J Toogood; Alan White; Timothy John; Myrddin Rees Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Umut Sarpel; Anthony S Bonavia; Alexis Grucela; Sasan Roayaie; Myron E Schwartz; Daniel M Labow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jennifer A Kalil; Jennifer Poirier; Bjoern Becker; Robert Van Dam; Xavier Keutgen; Erik Schadde Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.452
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: Demetrios Moris; Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Ioannis Ntanasis-Stathopoulos; Hugo P Marques; Eleftherios Spartalis; Evangelos Felekouras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Henrik Petrowsky; Ralph Fritsch; Matthias Guckenberger; Michelle L De Oliveira; Philipp Dutkowski; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Xu-Feng Zhang; Fabio Bagante; Jeffery Chakedis; Dimitrios Moris; Eliza W Beal; Matthew Weiss; Irinel Popescu; Hugo P Marques; Luca Aldrighetti; Shishir K Maithel; Carlo Pulitano; Todd W Bauer; Feng Shen; George A Poultsides; Oliver Soubrane; Guillaume Martel; B Groot Koerkamp; Alfredo Guglielmi; Endo Itaru; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Christoph Kuemmerli; Robert S Fichtinger; Alma Moekotte; Luca A Aldrighetti; Somaiah Aroori; Marc G H Besselink; Mathieu D'Hondt; Rafael Díaz-Nieto; Bjørn Edwin; Mikhail Efanov; Giuseppe M Ettorre; Krishna V Menon; Aali J Sheen; Zahir Soonawalla; Robert Sutcliffe; Roberto I Troisi; Steven A White; Lloyd Brandts; Gerard J P van Breukelen; Jasper Sijberden; Siân A Pugh; Zina Eminton; John N Primrose; Ronald van Dam; Mohammed Abu Hilal Journal: Trials Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Iwan Paolucci; Raluca-Maria Sandu; Luca Sahli; Gian Andrea Prevost; Federico Storni; Daniel Candinas; Stefan Weber; Anja Lachenmayer Journal: IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol Date: 2020-02-14