| Literature DB >> 33820549 |
Kosuke Ono1, Tomoyuki Abe2, Akihiko Oshita1,3, Yusuke Sumi1, Takuya Yano4, Hiroshi Okuda1, Manabu Kurayoshi1, Tsuyoshi Kobayashi3, Hideki Ohdan3, Toshio Noriyuki1,3, Masahiro Nakahara1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatectomy for resectable colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) is recommended. However, the efficacy of upfront hepatectomy without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is unclear due to the uncertainty of perioperative systemic chemotherapy. Moreover, it is crucial to predict the prognosis when considering perioperative chemotherapy. This study evaluated the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the prognosis of patients with resectable CRLM and assessed the usefulness of Beppu's nomogram for predicting prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: Beppu’s nomogram score; Hepatectomy; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Year: 2021 PMID: 33820549 PMCID: PMC8022388 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02210-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Results of univariate and multivariate analyses of the clinicopathological factors for recurrence-free survival rates
| Factors | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 years (%) | |||
| Gender | |||
| Male | 63 | 32.6 | - |
| Female | 25 | 40.9 | 0.361 |
| BMI | |||
| < 23 | 39 | 35.9 | - |
| ≥ 23 | 49 | 34.4 | 0.910 |
| Location | |||
| Colon | 47 | 34.8 | - |
| Rectum | 41 | 34.6 | 0.853 |
| Location | |||
| Right side | 12 | 15.0 | |
| Left side | 67 | 37.2 | |
| Transverse | 9 | 44.4 | 0.125 |
| Timing of liver metastasis | |||
| Metachronous | 46 | 39.4 | |
| Synchronous | 42 | 30.7 | 0.190 |
| Synchronous lung metastasis | |||
| Absent | 83 | 35.0 | |
| Present | 5 | 40.0 | 0.590 |
| 1 | 46 | 49.0 | |
| 2–4 | 28 | 20.8 | |
| ≥ 5 | 14 | 19.2 | |
| Largest tumor diameter | |||
| < 5 cm | 73 | 34.1 | |
| ≥ 5 cm | 15 | 37.0 | 0.999 |
| CEA level (before hepatectomy) | |||
| < 5 ng/ml | 35 | 27.9 | |
| ≥ 5 ng/mL | 52 | 38.5 | 0.438 |
| CA19-9 level (before hepatectomy) | |||
| < 38 U/mL | 63 | 29.6 | |
| ≥ 38 U/mL | 24 | 49.7 | 0.759 |
| I–III | 42 | 43.7 | |
| IV | 46 | 27.3 | |
| H1 | 55 | 47.6 | |
| H2–3 | 28 | 19.9 | |
| Grade A | 50 | 48.7 | |
| Grade B, C | 32 | 17.3 | |
| Primary tumor differentiation | |||
| Well-differentiated | 46 | 35.5 | |
| Others | 42 | 34.5 | 0.775 |
| lympatic invasion (primary tumor) | |||
| Negative | 29 | 41.5 | |
| Positive | 59 | 31.6 | 0.161 |
| Negative | 59 | 43.1 | |
| Positive | 29 | 19.9 | |
| N | |||
| Negative | 27 | 42.3 | |
| Positive | 61 | 31.3 | 0.057 |
| < 6 | 34 | 49.2 | |
| ≥ 6 | 54 | 26.5 | |
| Absent | 30 | 46.8 | |
| Present | 58 | 29.4 | |
| Operative procedure | |||
| Laparoscopic hepatectomy | 26 | 36.1 | |
| Open hepatectomy | 62 | 34.3 | 0.493 |
BMI body mass index, mGPS modified Glasgow prognostic score, NLR neutorophil lymphocyte ratio, PNI prognostic nutrition index, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA19-9 carbohydrate antigen 19-9
Fig. 1Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) after initial treatment for colorectal liver metastasis. RFS rate was significantly better in patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (the NAC− group) than in those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (the NAC+ group) (P = 0.029). The OS rate was not different between the two cases
Comparison of patients’ characteristics between patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy
| NAC (–) ( | NAC (+) ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Male sex | 21 (72%) | 42 (71%) | 0.904 |
| Age (years) | 73.5 (35–86) | 69 (48–85) | 0.026 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22 (16–34) | 23 (15–30) | 0.940 |
| Location (colon) | 11 (38%) | 30 (51%) | 0.254 |
| Location (right side) | 3 (10%) | 9 (16%) | 0.585 |
| Timing of liver metastasis (synchronous) | 13 (43%) | 29 (50%) | 0.703 |
| Synchronous lung metastasis | 0 | 5 (9%) | 0.128 |
| Tumor number (multiple) | 14 (47%) | 29 (50%) | 0.938 |
| Tumor number | 1.5 (1–7) | 1 (1–15) | 0.521 |
| CA19-9 | 12.5 (2–642) | 10.5 (2–2587.8) | 0.989 |
| Primary tumor differentiation (well) | |||
| Beppu’s nomogram score 6 < | 16 (53%) | 38 (66%) | 0.403 |
| Beppu’s nomogram score | 0.092 | ||
| Clavien-Dindo classification | 3 | 11 | 0.372 |
| Laparoscopic hepatectomy | 12 (40%) | 14 (24%) | 0.088 |
| Operation time | 322 (86–596) | 356 (127–727) | 0.253 |
| Intraoperative bleeding | 205 (20–4000) | 290 (20–3020) | 0.379 |
| PNI | 46 (28–81) | 46 (34–61) | 0.605 |
| NLR | 2.5 (0.3–9.4) | 1.9 (0.6–6.2) | 0.154 |
| GPS | 6 | 13 | 0.949 |
| mGPS | 3 | 10 | 0.356 |
Variables in bold are statistically significant (P < 0.05). Continuous variables are expressed as median (range). Qualitative variables are expressed as number (%).BMI body mass index, NAC neoadjuvant chemotherapy, NLR neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, PNI prognostic nutritional index, GPS Glasgow prognostic score, mGPS modified Glasgow prognostic score, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA19-9 carbohydrate antigen 19-9
Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios for resection in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases without neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy
| Endpoint | Crude | Adjusteda | IPTWb | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | ||||
| RFS | 1.942 | 1.057–3.568 | 0.032 | 1.616 | 0.831–3.144 | 0.157 | 1.141 | 0.547–2.380 | 0.724 |
aAdjusted for variable such as those were significant in the univariate analysis
bAdjusted by IPTW
HR hazard ratio, IPTW inverse probability of treatment weighing
Fig. 2Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). IPTW shows there is no significant difference in the recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate between the patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (the NAC+ group) and those who did not (the NAC− group) (P = 0.724)