Dayna P Y Sim1,2, Brian K P Goh3,4, Ser-Yee Lee1,5, Chung-Yip Chan1, Iain B H Tan5,6, Peng-Chung Cheow1, Premaraj Jeyaraj1, Pierce K H Chow1,5, London L P J Ooi1,5, Alexander Y F Chung1. 1. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. 2. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. 3. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. bsgkp@hotmail.com. 4. Duke NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. bsgkp@hotmail.com. 5. Duke NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. 6. Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Historically, the benefit of liver resection for non-colorectal, non-neuroendocrine (NCNN) liver metastases has been controversial. This study aims to determine the preoperative prognostic factors of liver resection for NCNN liver metastases and validate the Adam score in an Asian population. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent liver resection for NCNN liver metastases were identified retrospectively from a prospective liver resection database of the single institution between 2001 and 2014. Univariate Cox regression models were used to identify associations with outcome variables. Recurrence-free interval and overall survival were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. RESULTS: Seventy-eight consecutive patients were identified, which met the study criteria. Univariate analysis demonstrated that adenocarcinoma histology of primary cancer, disease-free interval and number of nodules were significant predictors of survival. Four of the six components of Adam score were significant predictors of survival. These were the presence of extrahepatic metastases, R2 resection, disease-free interval and type of a primary tumour. The total Adam score was also a significant predictor of survival. CONCLUSION: Liver resection for NCNN liver metastases is a safe and viable treatment option in carefully selected patients. Significant preoperative prognostic factors include adenocarcinoma primary tumours, disease-free interval and number of nodules. The total Adam score was a good predictor of overall survival and can be used to risk stratify patients undergoing hepatic resection for NCNN liver metastases.
BACKGROUND: Historically, the benefit of liver resection for non-colorectal, non-neuroendocrine (NCNN) liver metastases has been controversial. This study aims to determine the preoperative prognostic factors of liver resection for NCNN liver metastases and validate the Adam score in an Asian population. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent liver resection for NCNN liver metastases were identified retrospectively from a prospective liver resection database of the single institution between 2001 and 2014. Univariate Cox regression models were used to identify associations with outcome variables. Recurrence-free interval and overall survival were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. RESULTS: Seventy-eight consecutive patients were identified, which met the study criteria. Univariate analysis demonstrated that adenocarcinoma histology of primary cancer, disease-free interval and number of nodules were significant predictors of survival. Four of the six components of Adam score were significant predictors of survival. These were the presence of extrahepatic metastases, R2 resection, disease-free interval and type of a primary tumour. The total Adam score was also a significant predictor of survival. CONCLUSION: Liver resection for NCNN liver metastases is a safe and viable treatment option in carefully selected patients. Significant preoperative prognostic factors include adenocarcinoma primary tumours, disease-free interval and number of nodules. The total Adam score was a good predictor of overall survival and can be used to risk stratify patients undergoing hepatic resection for NCNN liver metastases.
Authors: Tobias S Schiergens; Juliane Lüning; Bernhard W Renz; Michael Thomas; Sebastian Pratschke; Hao Feng; Serene M L Lee; Jutta Engel; Markus Rentsch; Markus Guba; Jens Werner; Wolfgang E Thasler Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Süleyman Yedibela; Jonas Gohl; Valentina Graz; Mona Kathrin Pfaffenberger; Susanne Merkel; Werner Hohenberger; Thomas Meyer Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2005-08-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Moritz Schmelzle; Claus F Eisenberger; Jan Schulte am Esch; Hanno Matthaei; Markus Krausch; Wolfram T Knoefel Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Srinevas K Reddy; Andrew S Barbas; Carlos E Marroquin; Michael A Morse; Paul C Kuo; Bryan M Clary Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jan E Slotta; Jochen Schuld; Sabrina Distler; Sven Richter; Martin K Schilling; Otto Kollmar Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Eran Sadot; Ser Yee Lee; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Stephen B Solomon; Mithat Gönen; T Peter Kingham; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; William R Jarnagin; Clifford A Hudis; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ali Bohlok; Valerio Lucidi; Fikri Bouazza; Ali Daher; Desislava Germanova; Jean Luc Van Laethem; Alain Hendlisz; Vincent Donckier Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: J Engstrand; L F Abreu de Carvalho; D Aghayan; A Balakrishnan; A Belli; B Björnsson; B V M Dasari; O Detry; M Di Martino; B Edwin; J Erdmann; R Fristedt; G Fusai; T Gimenez-Maurel; O Hemmingsson; C Hidalgo Salinas; B Isaksson; A Ivanecz; F Izzo; W T Knoefel; P Kron; N Lehwald-Tywuschik; M Lesurtel; J P A Lodge; N Machairas; M V Marino; V Martin; A Paterson; J Rystedt; P Sandström; A Serrablo; A K Siriwardena; H Taflin; T M van Gulik; S Yaqub; I Özden; J M Ramia; C Sturesson Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-07-06