Y Kawaguchi1,2, S Kopetz3, H S Tran Cao1, E Panettieri1,4, M De Bellis1,5, Y Nishioka2, H Hwang6, X Wang6, C-W D Tzeng1, Y S Chun1, T A Aloia1, K Hasegawa2, A Guglielmi5, F Giuliante4, J-N Vauthey1. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Foundation and Teaching Hospital IRCCS A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy. 5. Department of Surgery, Division of General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, G. B. Rossi University Hospital, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most current models for predicting survival after resection of colorectal liver metastasis include largest diameter and number of colorectal liver metastases as dichotomous variables, resulting in underestimation of the extent of risk variation and substantial loss of statistical power. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a new prognostic model for patients undergoing liver resection including largest diameter and number of colorectal liver metastases as continuous variables. METHODS: A prognostic model was developed using data from patients who underwent liver resection for colorectal liver metastases at MD Anderson Cancer Center and had RAS mutational data. A Cox proportional hazards model analysis was used to develop a model based on largest colorectal liver metastasis diameter and number of metastases as continuous variables. The model results were shown using contour plots, and validated externally in an international multi-institutional cohort. RESULTS: A total of 810 patients met the inclusion criteria. Largest colorectal liver metastasis diameter (hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95 per cent confidence interval 1.06 to 1.16; P < 0.001), number of colorectal liver metastases (HR 1.06, 1.03 to 1.09; P < 0.001), and RAS mutation status (HR 1.76, 1.42 to 2.18; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with overall survival, together with age, primary lymph node metastasis, and prehepatectomy chemotherapy. The model performed well in the external validation cohort, with predicted overall survival values almost lying within 10 per cent of observed values. Wild-type RAS was associated with better overall survival than RAS mutation even when liver resection was performed for larger and/or multiple colorectal liver metastases. CONCLUSION: The contour prognostic model, based on diameter and number of lesions considered as continuous variables along with RAS mutation, predicts overall survival after resection of colorectal liver metastasis.
BACKGROUND: Most current models for predicting survival after resection of colorectal liver metastasis include largest diameter and number of colorectal liver metastases as dichotomous variables, resulting in underestimation of the extent of risk variation and substantial loss of statistical power. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a new prognostic model for patients undergoing liver resection including largest diameter and number of colorectal liver metastases as continuous variables. METHODS: A prognostic model was developed using data from patients who underwent liver resection for colorectal liver metastases at MD Anderson Cancer Center and had RAS mutational data. A Cox proportional hazards model analysis was used to develop a model based on largest colorectal liver metastasis diameter and number of metastases as continuous variables. The model results were shown using contour plots, and validated externally in an international multi-institutional cohort. RESULTS: A total of 810 patients met the inclusion criteria. Largest colorectal liver metastasis diameter (hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95 per cent confidence interval 1.06 to 1.16; P < 0.001), number of colorectal liver metastases (HR 1.06, 1.03 to 1.09; P < 0.001), and RAS mutation status (HR 1.76, 1.42 to 2.18; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with overall survival, together with age, primary lymph node metastasis, and prehepatectomy chemotherapy. The model performed well in the external validation cohort, with predicted overall survival values almost lying within 10 per cent of observed values. Wild-type RAS was associated with better overall survival than RAS mutation even when liver resection was performed for larger and/or multiple colorectal liver metastases. CONCLUSION: The contour prognostic model, based on diameter and number of lesions considered as continuous variables along with RAS mutation, predicts overall survival after resection of colorectal liver metastasis.
Authors: Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Giuseppe Zimmitti; Scott E Kopetz; Junichi Shindoh; Su S Chen; Andreas Andreou; Steven A Curley; Thomas A Aloia; Dipen M Maru Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michael A Choti; James V Sitzmann; Marcelo F Tiburi; Wuthi Sumetchotimetha; Ram Rangsin; Richard D Schulick; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo; John L Cameron Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: John H Robblee; Johannes Messinger; Roehl M Cinco; Karen L McFarlane; Carmen Fernandez; Shelly A Pizarro; Kenneth Sauer; Vittal K Yachandra Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2002-06-26 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: R P Jones; J-N Vauthey; R Adam; M Rees; D Berry; R Jackson; N Grimes; S W Fenwick; G J Poston; H Z Malik Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: G A Margonis; K Sasaki; S Gholami; Y Kim; N Andreatos; N Rezaee; A Deshwar; S Buettner; P J Allen; T P Kingham; T M Pawlik; J He; J L Cameron; W R Jarnagin; C L Wolfgang; M I D'Angelica; M J Weiss Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Eddie K Abdalla; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Lee M Ellis; Vickie Ellis; Raphael Pollock; Kristine R Broglio; Kenneth Hess; Steven A Curley Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Karel G M Moons; Douglas G Altman; Johannes B Reitsma; John P A Ioannidis; Petra Macaskill; Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; David F Ransohoff; Gary S Collins Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Yoshikuni Kawaguchi; Scott Kopetz; Elena Panettieri; Hyunsoo Hwang; Xuemei Wang; Hop S Tran Cao; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Yun Shin Chun; Thomas A Aloia; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Andrew A Gumbs; Roland Croner; Eric Lorenz; Andrea Benedetti Cacciaguerra; Tzu-Jung Tsai; Lee Starker; Joe Flanagan; Ng Jing Yu; Elie Chouillard; Mohammad Abu Hilal Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Yoshikuni Kawaguchi; Scott Kopetz; Lawrence Kwong; Lianchun Xiao; Jeffrey S Morris; Hop S Tran Cao; Ching-Wei D Tzeng; Yun Shin Chun; Jeffrey E Lee; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 6.532