Diederik J Höppener1, Cornelis Verhoef2. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. c.verhoef@erasmusmc.nl.
Within the field of colorectal cancer (CRC), especially concerning colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), time to metastasis is generally seen as an important prognostic indicator. The interval between resection of the primary malignancy and the detection of CRLM, also known as the disease-free interval (DFI), is a key element in the current clinical risk scores.1,2 A recent analysis questioned this, when no noticeable prognostic information was found for the time to metastases in patients with metastatic CRC.3 However, no distinction was made between dissemination site(s) and local, systemic, or palliative therapy. This study therefore evaluated the prognostic value of the DFI specifically in patients with CRLM eligible for surgical therapy.
Present
Our results indeed show that the prognostic value of the DFI in patients eligible for surgical treatment of CRLM is more limited than previously thought.4 The DFI proved only prognostic for early disease recurrence, but this earlier disease recurrence did not seem to translate into an impaired overall survival. While this could be due to a higher rate of salvage therapy, no correlation was found between DFI and salvageability for recurrences.
Future
The results of the study show that prognosis prediction based solely on clinical variables leaves much to be desired, because the clinical variable assessed only proved of limited prognostic value. While clinical variables can sometimes be considered as a proxy for tumor biology, future efforts to improve prediction modelling should perhaps be based more on actual biological factors instead. Potential candidates within the field of CRLM include (but are not limited to) the histopathological growth patterns and the quantification of immune infiltration at the tumour microenvironment.5,6
Authors: Marc Van den Eynde; Bernhard Mlecnik; Gabriela Bindea; Tessa Fredriksen; Sarah E Church; Lucie Lafontaine; Nacilla Haicheur; Florence Marliot; Mihaela Angelova; Angela Vasaturo; Daniela Bruni; Anne Jouret-Mourin; Pamela Baldin; Nicolas Huyghe; Karin Haustermans; Annelies Debucquoy; Eric Van Cutsem; Jean-Francois Gigot; Catherine Hubert; Alex Kartheuser; Christophe Remue; Daniel Léonard; Viia Valge-Archer; Franck Pagès; Jean-Pascal Machiels; Jérôme Galon Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; Prudence R Carr; Lina Jansen; Jenny Chang-Claude; Jürgen Weitz; Michael Hoffmeister; Hermann Brenner Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Boris Galjart; Pieter M H Nierop; Eric P van der Stok; Robert R J Coebergh van den Braak; Diederik J Höppener; Sofie Daelemans; Luc Y Dirix; Cornelis Verhoef; Peter B Vermeulen; Dirk J Grünhagen Journal: Angiogenesis Date: 2019-01-12 Impact factor: 9.596
Authors: Diederik J Höppener; Pieter M H Nierop; Martinus J van Amerongen; Pim B Olthof; Boris Galjart; Thomas M van Gulik; Johannes H W de Wilt; Dirk J Grünhagen; Nuh N Rahbari; Cornelis Verhoef Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ali Bohlok; Peter Vermeulen; Sophia Leduc; Emily Latacz; Lara Botzenhart; François Richard; Maxim De Schepper; Tatjana Geukens; Valerio Lucidi; Michail Ignatiadis; Philippe Aftimos; Christos Sotiriou; Martine Piccart; Alain Hendlisz; Steven Van Laere; Luc Dirix; Jean-Christophe Noël; Elia Biganzoli; Denis Larsimont; Christine Desmedt; Vincent Donckier Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2020-12-18