ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Assessing patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) by a liver multidisciplinary team (MDT) results in higher resection rates and improved survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potentially improved resection rate in a defined cohort if all patients with CRCLM were evaluated by a liver MDT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer during 2008 in the greater Stockholm region was conducted. All patients with liver metastases (LM), detected during 5-year follow-up, were re-evaluated at a fictive liver MDT in which previous imaging studies, tumor characteristics, medical history, and patients' own treatment preferences were presented. Treatment decisions for each patient were compared to the original management. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for factors associated with referral to the liver MDT. RESULTS: Of 272 patients diagnosed with LM, 102 patients were discussed at an original liver MDT and 69 patients were eventually resected. At the fictive liver MDT, a further 22 patients were considered as resectable/potentially resectable, none previously assessed by a hepatobiliary surgeon. Factors influencing referral to liver MDT were age (OR 3.12, 1.72-5.65), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score (OR 0.34, 0.18-0.63; ASA 2 vs. ASA 3), and number of LM (OR 0.10, 0.04-0.22; 1-5 LM vs. >10 LM), while gender (p = .194) and treatment at a teaching hospital (p = .838) were not. CONCLUSION: A meaningful number of patients with liver metastases are not managed according to best available evidence and the potential for higher resection rates is substantial. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with liver metastatic colorectal cancer who are assessed at a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary meeting achieve higher resection rates and improved survival. Unfortunately, patients who may benefit from resection are not always properly referred. In this study, the potential improved resection rate was assessed by re-evaluating all patients with liver metastases from a population-based cohort, including patients with extrahepatic metastases and accounting for comorbidity and patients' own preferences towards treatment. An additional 12.9% of the patients were found to be potentially resectable. The results highlight the importance of all patients being evaluated in the setting of a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary meeting.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Hepatectomy/statistics & numerical data , Liver Neoplasms/surgery , Patient Care Team/statistics & numerical data , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/mortality , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hepatectomy/standards , Humans , Liver/pathology , Liver/surgery , Liver Neoplasms/diagnosis , Liver Neoplasms/mortality , Liver Neoplasms/secondary , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Patient Care Team/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Referral and Consultation/standards , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the immunomodulatory and clinical effects of lenalidomide with standard treatment of gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated in first line with lenalidomide orally for 21 days of a 28 days cycle and the standard regimen for gemcitabine. In Part I, which we previously have reported, the dose of lenalidomide was defined (n = 12). In Part II, every other consecutive patient was treated with either lenalidomide (Group A, n = 11) or gemcitabine (Group B, n = 10) during cycle 1. From cycle 2 on, all Part II patients received the combination. RESULTS: A significant decrease in the proliferative response of peripheral blood mononuclear cells and the frequency of DCs were noted in patients at baseline compared to healthy control donors while the frequencies of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, NK-cells and MDSCs were significantly higher in patients compared to controls. In Group A, a significant increase in the absolute numbers of activated (HLA-DR+) CD4 and CD8 T cells and CD8 effector memory T cells (p<0.01) was noted during treatment. A statistical increment in the absolute numbers of Tregs were seen after cycle 1 (p<0.05). The addition of gemcitabine, reduced most lymphocyte subsets (p<0.05). In Group B, the proportion of lymphocytes remained unchanged during the study period. There was no difference in overall survival, progression free survival and survival rate at one year comparing the two groups. DISCUSSION: Patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma had impaired immune functions. Lenalidomide augmented T cell reactivities, which were abrogated by gemcitabine. However, addition of lenalidomide to gemcitabine seemed to have no therapeutic impact compared to gemcitabine alone in this non-randomized study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01547260.
