| Literature DB >> 35726221 |
WenJi Lin1, CongHui Zhu1, JiaDi Yao1, YuHuang Liu1, HuiYu Lin2, Yan Liu3.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of deaths in China. The initial stages of colorectal cancer can be treated by surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. However, in the advanced stages, it warrants an application of multimodality treatment. With advances in the medical field, there are applications of new modality of treatment that could possibly provide the appropriate treatment for the advanced stage tumours. The first site of metastasis after colorectal cancer is the liver and the conventional treatment to cure the metastatic lesion involves the administration of chemotherapy. With further advancement, chemotherapy has been directly administered at the thorough transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) which is a vascular intervention. With further advancement, the nonvascular intervention, such as radiofrequency ablations (RFAs), has been administered to the patients. A large amount of data support the use of vascular intervention (TACE) with ablation for hepatic carcinoma; there is no sufficient literature to support the application of the modality in the metastatic liver lesion. In this prospective observational study, we have enrolled 80 patients with metastatic liver lesion from the adenocarcinoma of colon or rectum, treated the patients with a combination of the TACE and ablation therapy, and followed up the patients for a period of 3 years. A multivariate analysis of the various factors that influence the prognosis and outcome has been studied and it has been concluded that the combination therapy is medically beneficial for individuals with aggressive liver lesions, improving overall as well as progression-free life span.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35726221 PMCID: PMC9206548 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9690401
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.501
Figure 1Liver metastatic work upon colorectal cancer patients.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria for CRLM.
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Colorectal cancer patients with unresectable liver metastases | Weight loss >10% in the last 6 months. |
| 2. | Histological indications of adenocarcinoma in a surgically excised primary tumour | Hypersensitivity to rapamycin is reported. |
| 3. | Within 12 months of the faculty meeting at the transplantation unit, there were no symptoms of tumour recurrence as determined by colonoscopy/CT colography. | Largest liver metastasis >10 cm |
| 4. | Within 4 weeks of the faculty meeting at the transplant unit, there were no symptoms of extrahepatic metastatic disease or local recurrence on CT or MRI (thorax/abdomen/pelvis). | Other cancers that have not been cured |
| 5. | ECOG grade 0 or 1 indicates good performance. | Patient BMI>30 kg/m2 |
| 6. | Patients at least 18 years of age | Any reason why the patient should not participate, in the investigator's judgement |
| 7. | For patients with rectal cancer, a standard surgical approach with appropriate resection margins and a CRM of at least 2 mm is recommended. | Pregnant or breastfeeding women |
| 8. | According to good clinical practise and national/local legislation, signed informed consent and the patient's expected cooperation for treatment and follow-up must be obtained and documented. | — |
| 9. | According to PET/CT, there is no evidence of extrahepatic metastatic disease or local recurrence. | — |
| 10. | The patient might be included even if he or she does not need any further chemotherapy. According to RECIST 1.1, if chemotherapy is used, the patient should have a response or stable illness. | — |
Figure 2The ablative treatment for hepatic lesions secondary to colorectal cancer.
Figure 3MRI of the metastatic liver lesion at 1 month in image A and C and 6 months in image B and D.
Figure 4Survival probability (%).
Demographic of the patients enrolled for study.
| Characteristic | Number of patients (80) |
|---|---|
| Age | |
| ≤60 | 49 |
| >60 | 31 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 72 |
| Female | 8 |
| Hepatitis infection | |
| Yes | 69 |
| No | 11 |
| Cirrhosis | |
| Yes | 49 |
| No | 31 |
| History of surgery | |
| Yes | 13 |
| No | 67 |
| Tumour size | |
| ≤5 cm | 45 |
| 5–10 cm | 35 |
| Number of lesions | |
| 1 | 47 |
| More than 1 | 33 |
| AFP levels | |
| >400–500 ng/ml | 52 |
| ALT | |
| ≤40 | 45 |
| >40 | 35 |
| AST levels | |
| ≤40 | 36 |
| >40 | 44 |
The univariate and multivariate Cox models for overall survival and progression-free survival.
| Age | Overall survival | Progression-free survival | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis HRp | Multivariate analysis HRp | Univariate analysis HRp | Multivariate analysis HRp | |||||
| Age (≤60, >60) | 1.116 (0.705–1.764 | 0.643 | 1.137 (0.753–1.718 | 0.54 | ||||
| Gender (male, female) | 0.718 (0.367–1.406) | 0.335 | 0.68 (0.370–1.249) | 0.2 | ||||
| Hepatitis (yes, no) | 0.626 (0.345–1.136) | 0.124 | 2.323 (1.096–4.923) | 0.024 | 0.560 (0.335–0.936) | 0.026 | 2.089 (1.078–4.048) | 0.027 |
| Cirrhosis (yes, no | 0.637 (0.405–1.003 | 0.052 | 0.744 (0.494–1.120 | 0.162 | ||||
| History of surgery | 1.038 (0.584–1.845 | 0.905 | 1.177 (0.689–2.016 | 0.546 | ||||
| Tumour size (≤5 cm, 5–10 cm) | 0.523 (0.328–0.8351 | 0.008 | 1.956 (1.214–3.146 | 0.005 | 0.746 (0.493–1.129 | 0.175 | ||
| No. of lesions (one, more) | 1.391 (0.885–2.187) | 0.153 | 0.962 (0.636–1.454) | 0.86 | ||||
| AFP (ng/ml) (≤200, >200) | 0.419 (0.256–0.685 | 0.001 | 2.426 (1.533–3.839 | <0.001 | 0.550 (0.349–0.866 | 0.02 | 1.732 (1.136–2.639 | 0.011 |
| ALT (U/L) (≤40, >40) | 0.965 (0.614–1.518 | 0.872 | 1.039 (0.690–1.560 | 0.86 | ||||
| AST (U/L) | ||||||||
| (≤40, >40) | 0.537 (0.340–0.849 | 0.007 | 1.946 (1.196–3.166) | 0.005 | 0.610 (0.407–0.915 | 0.018 | 1.741 (1.144–2.650) | 0.011 |
Progression-free and overall survival with the bound of three years.
| Year (y) | Overall survival (%) | Progression-free survival (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 75.8 | 42.8 |
| 2 | 58.1 | 31.4 |
| 3 | 37.2 | 19 |
Figure 5Carcinoembryogenic antigen (CA19-9).