BACKGROUND: Surgery is the only potentially curative treatment for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLMs). Despite an improvement in results following resection, recurrence rates remain high. Many histopathological features have been reported as prognostic factors. Infiltrative borders are known to be associated with worse prognosis; however, margin size has never been evaluated together with the type of tumor border. In the present study, we analyzed the prognosis of patients with resected CRLM according to tumor growth pattern (TGP) and whether a larger margin size would bring any prognostic benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records from a prospective database of 645 patients who underwent hepatic resection for CRLM between January 2004 and December 2019 at a single center were reviewed, and 266 patients were included in the analytic cohort. TGP (pushing or infiltrative) was evaluated regarding the impact in overall and disease-free survival. The impact of margin size (≤ or > 1 cm) on survival and hepatic recurrence according to TGP was also evaluated. RESULTS: TGP was defined as infiltrative in 182 cases (68.4%) and pushing in 84 patients (31.6%). Patients with infiltrative-type border presented worse overall survival and disease-free survival, as well as higher intrahepatic recurrence (p < 0.05). Larger margin size did not impact the prognosis of patients with infiltrative borders. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with infiltrative-type border present worse prognosis and higher intrahepatic recurrence. Larger margin size (> 1 cm) does not change the prognosis in patients with infiltrative border, showing that tumor biology is the most important factor for survival.
BACKGROUND: Surgery is the only potentially curative treatment for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLMs). Despite an improvement in results following resection, recurrence rates remain high. Many histopathological features have been reported as prognostic factors. Infiltrative borders are known to be associated with worse prognosis; however, margin size has never been evaluated together with the type of tumor border. In the present study, we analyzed the prognosis of patients with resected CRLM according to tumor growth pattern (TGP) and whether a larger margin size would bring any prognostic benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records from a prospective database of 645 patients who underwent hepatic resection for CRLM between January 2004 and December 2019 at a single center were reviewed, and 266 patients were included in the analytic cohort. TGP (pushing or infiltrative) was evaluated regarding the impact in overall and disease-free survival. The impact of margin size (≤ or > 1 cm) on survival and hepatic recurrence according to TGP was also evaluated. RESULTS: TGP was defined as infiltrative in 182 cases (68.4%) and pushing in 84 patients (31.6%). Patients with infiltrative-type border presented worse overall survival and disease-free survival, as well as higher intrahepatic recurrence (p < 0.05). Larger margin size did not impact the prognosis of patients with infiltrative borders. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with infiltrative-type border present worse prognosis and higher intrahepatic recurrence. Larger margin size (> 1 cm) does not change the prognosis in patients with infiltrative border, showing that tumor biology is the most important factor for survival.
Authors: Lydia G M van der Geest; Jorine't Lam-Boer; Miriam Koopman; Cees Verhoef; Marloes A G Elferink; Johannes H W de Wilt Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Evelien Dekker; Pieter J Tanis; Jasper L A Vleugels; Pashtoon M Kasi; Michael B Wallace Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michael G House; Hiromichi Ito; Mithat Gönen; Yuman Fong; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; Murray F Brennan; Leslie H Blumgart; William R Jarnagin; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jaime A P Krüger; Gilton M Fonseca; Fabio F Makdissi; Vagner B Jeismann; Fabrício F Coelho; Paulo Herman Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Josep Martí; María Marta Modolo; Josep Fuster; Jaume Comas; Rebeca Cosa; Joana Ferrer; Victor Molina; Juan Romero; Constantino Fondevila; Ramón Charco; Juan Carlos García-Valdecasas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-06-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Alice C Wei; Paul D Greig; David Grant; Bryce Taylor; Bernard Langer; Steven Gallinger Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-03-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Emily Latacz; Diederik Höppener; Ali Bohlok; Vincent Donckier; Peter M Siegel; Raymond Barnhill; Marco Gerling; Cornelis Verhoef; Peter B Vermeulen; Sophia Leduc; Sébastien Tabariès; Carlos Fernández Moro; Claire Lugassy; Hanna Nyström; Béla Bozóky; Giuseppe Floris; Natalie Geyer; Pnina Brodt; Laura Llado; Laura Van Mileghem; Maxim De Schepper; Ali W Majeed; Anthoula Lazaris; Piet Dirix; Qianni Zhang; Stéphanie K Petrillo; Sophie Vankerckhove; Ines Joye; Yannick Meyer; Alexander Gregorieff; Nuria Ruiz Roig; Fernando Vidal-Vanaclocha; Larsimont Denis; Rui Caetano Oliveira; Peter Metrakos; Dirk J Grünhagen; Iris D Nagtegaal; David G Mollevi; William R Jarnagin; Michael I D'Angelica; Andrew R Reynolds; Michail Doukas; Christine Desmedt; Luc Dirix Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 9.075