H Salvador-Rosés1,2, S López-Ben3, P Planellas3, E Canals4, M Casellas-Robert3,5, R Farrés3, E Ramos6, A Codina-Cazador3, J Figueras3,5. 1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Doctor Josep Trueta University Hospital, IdIBGi, Avinguda de França, S/N, 17007, Girona, Spain. hsalvadorroses@gmail.com. 2. University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. hsalvadorroses@gmail.com. 3. Department of Digestive Surgery, Doctor Josep Trueta University Hospital, IdIBGi, Avinguda de França, S/N, 17007, Girona, Spain. 4. Section of Radiotherapy, Institut Catala de Oncologia, "Doctor Josep Trueta" University Hospital, IdIBGi, Girona, Spain. 5. University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Department of Digestive Surgery, Bellvitge Hospital, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal sequence of surgery for rectal cancer (RC) with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) is controversial. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to explore differences between the rectum first (RF) and the liver first strategy (LF) to achieve the complete resection (CR) of both tumors. METHODS: Patients diagnosed of RC with resectable or potentially resectable SLM were included. Data collected prospectively were analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective, adjusting for between-sample differences (propensity score). The complete resection rate (CRR) was the main outcome variable. RESULTS: During a 5-year period, 23 patients underwent the LF strategy and 24 patients the RF strategy. Median overall survival (OS) was 32 months in the LF group and 41 months in the RF group (p = 0.499), and was 51 and 17 months, respectively, for patients achieving or not achieving CR of both tumors (p < 0.001). CRR's were 65% in liver first group and 63% in rectum first group, (p = 0.846). No between-strategy differences in morbidity or duration of treatment were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the notion that the achievement of CR of RC and SLM should be the goal of oncological treatment. Both RF and LF strategies are feasible and safe, but no between-strategy differences have been found in the CRR.
BACKGROUND: The optimal sequence of surgery for rectal cancer (RC) with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) is controversial. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to explore differences between the rectum first (RF) and the liver first strategy (LF) to achieve the complete resection (CR) of both tumors. METHODS:Patients diagnosed of RC with resectable or potentially resectable SLM were included. Data collected prospectively were analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective, adjusting for between-sample differences (propensity score). The complete resection rate (CRR) was the main outcome variable. RESULTS: During a 5-year period, 23 patients underwent the LF strategy and 24 patients the RF strategy. Median overall survival (OS) was 32 months in the LF group and 41 months in the RF group (p = 0.499), and was 51 and 17 months, respectively, for patients achieving or not achieving CR of both tumors (p < 0.001). CRR's were 65% in liver first group and 63% in rectum first group, (p = 0.846). No between-strategy differences in morbidity or duration of treatment were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the notion that the achievement of CR of RC and SLM should be the goal of oncological treatment. Both RF and LF strategies are feasible and safe, but no between-strategy differences have been found in the CRR.
Authors: M A G Elferink; L N van Steenbergen; P Krijnen; V E P P Lemmens; H J Rutten; C A M Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H E Karim-Kos; E de Vries; S Siesling Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Skye C Mayo; Carlo Pulitano; Hugo Marques; Jorge Lamelas; Christopher L Wolfgang; Wassila de Saussure; Michael A Choti; Isabelle Gindrat; Luca Aldrighetti; Eduardo Barrosso; Gilles Mentha; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 6.113
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: Nuh N Rahbari; O James Garden; Robert Padbury; Mark Brooke-Smith; Michael Crawford; Rene Adam; Moritz Koch; Masatoshi Makuuchi; Ronald P Dematteo; Christopher Christophi; Simon Banting; Val Usatoff; Masato Nagino; Guy Maddern; Thomas J Hugh; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Paul Greig; Myrddin Rees; Yukihiro Yokoyama; Sheung Tat Fan; Yuji Nimura; Joan Figueras; Lorenzo Capussotti; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: René Adam; Aimery de Gramont; Joan Figueras; Norihiro Kokudo; Francis Kunstlinger; Evelyne Loyer; Graeme Poston; Philippe Rougier; Laura Rubbia-Brandt; Alberto Sobrero; Catherine Teh; Sabine Tejpar; Eric Van Cutsem; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Lars Påhlman Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Ryan Anthony F Agas; Lester Bryan A Co; J C Kennetth M Jacinto; Kelvin Ken L Yu; Paolo G Sogono; Warren R Bacorro; Teresa T Sy Ortin Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2018-12