Marco Calandri1, Suguru Yamashita2, Carlo Gazzera1, Paolo Fonio1, Andrea Veltri3, Sara Bustreo4, Rahul A Sheth5, Steven M Yevich5, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey2, Bruno C Odisio6. 1. Radiology Institute, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Città della Salute e della Scienza, Via Genova 3, 10126, Torino, Italy. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Radiology Unit, Oncology Department, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole, 10043, Orbassano, Italy. 4. Department of Medical Oncology 1, Città della Salute e della Scienza, Via Genova 3, 10126, Torino, Italy. 5. Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas, USA. 6. Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas, USA. bcodisio@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate effects of ablation margins on local tumour progression-free survival (LTPFS) according to RAS status in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). METHODS: This two-institution retrospective study from 2005-2016 included 136 patients (91 male, median age 60 years) with 218 ablated CLM. LTPFS was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and evaluated with the log-rank test. Uni/multivariate analyses were performed using Cox-regression models. RESULTS: Three-year LTPFS rates for CLM with minimal ablation margin ≤10 mm were significantly worse than those with >10 mm in both mutant-RAS (29% vs. 48%, p=0.038) and wild-type RAS (70% vs. 94%, p=0.039) subgroups. Three-year LTPFS rates of mutant-RAS were significantly worse than wild-type RAS in both CLM subgroups with minimal ablation margin ≤10 mm (29% vs. 70%, p<0.001) and >10 mm (48% vs. 94%, p=0.006). Predictors of worse LTPFS were ablation margins ≤10 mm (HR: 2.17, 95% CI 1.2-4.1, p=0.007), CLM size ≥2 cm (1.80, 1.1-2.8, p=0.017) and mutant-RAS (2.85, 1.7-4.6, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Minimal ablation margin and RAS status interact as independent predictors of LTPFS following CLM ablation. While minimal ablation margins >10 mm should be always the procedural goal, this becomes especially critical for mutant-RAS CLM. KEY POINTS: • RAS and ablation margins are predictors of local tumour progression-free survival. • Ablation margin >10 mm, always desirable, is crucial for mutant RAS metastases. • Interventional radiologists should be aware of RAS status to optimize LTPFS.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate effects of ablation margins on local tumour progression-free survival (LTPFS) according to RAS status in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). METHODS: This two-institution retrospective study from 2005-2016 included 136 patients (91 male, median age 60 years) with 218 ablated CLM. LTPFS was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and evaluated with the log-rank test. Uni/multivariate analyses were performed using Cox-regression models. RESULTS: Three-year LTPFS rates for CLM with minimal ablation margin ≤10 mm were significantly worse than those with >10 mm in both mutant-RAS (29% vs. 48%, p=0.038) and wild-type RAS (70% vs. 94%, p=0.039) subgroups. Three-year LTPFS rates of mutant-RAS were significantly worse than wild-type RAS in both CLM subgroups with minimal ablation margin ≤10 mm (29% vs. 70%, p<0.001) and >10 mm (48% vs. 94%, p=0.006). Predictors of worse LTPFS were ablation margins ≤10 mm (HR: 2.17, 95% CI 1.2-4.1, p=0.007), CLM size ≥2 cm (1.80, 1.1-2.8, p=0.017) and mutant-RAS (2.85, 1.7-4.6, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Minimal ablation margin and RAS status interact as independent predictors of LTPFS following CLM ablation. While minimal ablation margins >10 mm should be always the procedural goal, this becomes especially critical for mutant-RAS CLM. KEY POINTS: • RAS and ablation margins are predictors of local tumour progression-free survival. • Ablation margin >10 mm, always desirable, is crucial for mutant RAS metastases. • Interventional radiologists should be aware of RAS status to optimize LTPFS.
Authors: Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena N Petre; Mithat Gonen; Karen T Brown; Stephen B Solomon; Anne M Covey; William Alago; Lynn A Brody; Raymond H Thornton; Michael D'Angelica; Yuman Fong; Nancy E Kemeny Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Claire B Pollock; Senji Shirasawa; Takehiko Sasazuki; Walter Kolch; Amardeep S Dhillon Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Muneeb Ahmed; Luigi Solbiati; Christopher L Brace; David J Breen; Matthew R Callstrom; J William Charboneau; Min-Hua Chen; Byung Ihn Choi; Thierry de Baère; Gerald D Dodd; Damian E Dupuy; Debra A Gervais; David Gianfelice; Alice R Gillams; Fred T Lee; Edward Leen; Riccardo Lencioni; Peter J Littrup; Tito Livraghi; David S Lu; John P McGahan; Maria Franca Meloni; Boris Nikolic; Philippe L Pereira; Ping Liang; Hyunchul Rhim; Steven C Rose; Riad Salem; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Stephen B Solomon; Michael C Soulen; Masatoshi Tanaka; Thomas J Vogl; Bradford J Wood; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Thierry de Baere; Lambros Tselikas; Steven Yevich; Valérie Boige; Frederic Deschamps; Michel Ducreux; Diane Goere; France Nguyen; David Malka Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Hyuk Hur; Yong Taek Ko; Byung Soh Min; Kyung Sik Kim; Jin Sub Choi; Seung Kook Sohn; Chang Hwan Cho; Heung Kyu Ko; Jong Tai Lee; Nam Kyu Kim Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-09-11 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Waleed Shady; Elena N Petre; Mithat Gonen; Joseph P Erinjeri; Karen T Brown; Anne M Covey; William Alago; Jeremy C Durack; Majid Maybody; Lynn A Brody; Robert H Siegelbaum; Michael I D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Stephen B Solomon; Nancy E Kemeny; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rafael G Amado; Michael Wolf; Marc Peeters; Eric Van Cutsem; Salvatore Siena; Daniel J Freeman; Todd Juan; Robert Sikorski; Sid Suggs; Robert Radinsky; Scott D Patterson; David D Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eduardo A Vega; Omid Salehi; Diana Nicolaescu; Edward-Michael Dussom; Sylvia V Alarcon; Olga Kozyreva; Jana Simonds; Deborah Schnipper; Claudius Conrad Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Vlasios S Sotirchos; Sho Fujisawa; Efsevia Vakiani; Stephen B Solomon; Katia O Manova-Todorova; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: R Vera; E González-Flores; C Rubio; J Urbano; M Valero Camps; J J Ciampi-Dopazo; J Orcajo Rincón; V Morillo Macías; M A Gomez Braco; G Suarez-Artacho Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Marco Calandri; Giulia Siravegna; Andrea Veltri; Bruno C Odisio; Steven M Yevich; Giuseppe Stranieri; Carlo Gazzera; Scott Kopetz; Paolo Fonio; Sanjay Gupta; Alberto Bardelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 5.315