ABSTRACT
Background: The goal of treatment for patients with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) from rectal cancer is to achieve a complete resection of both tumor locations. For patients with symptomatic locally advanced rectal cancer with resectable SLM at diagnosis, our usual strategy has been the rectum first approach (RF). However, since 2014, we advocate for the interval approach (IS) that involves the administration of chemo-radiotherapy followed by the resection of the SLM in the interval of time between rectal cancer radiation and rectal surgery. Methods: From 2010 to 2016, 16 patients were treated according to this new strategy and 19 were treated according RF strategy. Data were collected prospectively and analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective. Complete resection rate, duration of the treatment and morbi-mortality were the main outcomes. Results: The complete resection rate in the IS was higher (100%, n = 16) compared to the RF (74%, n = 14, p = 0.049) and the duration of the strategy was shorter (6 vs. 9 months, respectively, p = 0.006). The incidence of severe complications after liver surgery was 14% (n = 2) in the RF and 0% in the IS (p = 1.000), and after rectal surgery was 24% (n = 4) and 12% (n = 2), respectively (p = 1.000). Conclusion: The IS is a feasible and safe strategy that procures higher level of complete resection rate in a shorter period of time compared to RF strategy
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Liver Neoplasms/pathology , Hepatectomy , Rectal Neoplasms/surgery , Liver Neoplasms/surgery , Neoplasm Metastasis/pathology , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/pathology , Neoplasms, Multiple Primary/pathology , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
Background. The optimal sequence of surgery for rectal cancer (RC) with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) is controversial. Objectives. The primary objective was to explore differences between the rectum first (RF) and the liver first strategy (LF) to achieve the complete resection (CR) of both tumors. Methods. Patients diagnosed of RC with resectable or potentially resectable SLM were included. Data collected prospectively were analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective, adjusting for between-sample differences (propensity score). The complete resection rate (CRR) was the main outcome variable. Results. During a 5-year period, 23 patients underwent the LF strategy and 24 patients the RF strategy. Median overall survival (OS) was 32 months in the LF group and 41 months in the RF group (p = 0.499), and was 51 and 17 months, respectively, for patients achieving or not achieving CR of both tumors (p < 0.001). CRRs were 65% in liver first group and 63% in rectum first group, (p = 0.846). No between-strategy differences in morbidity or duration of treatment were observed. Conclusions. This study supports the notion that the achievement of CR of RC and SLM should be the goal of oncological treatment. Both RF and LF strategies are feasible and safe, but no between-strategy differences have been found in the CRR (AU)
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Rectal Neoplasms/therapy , Liver Neoplasms/therapy , Neoplasms, Multiple Primary/therapy , Health Strategies , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Liver Neoplasms/secondary , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The goal of treatment for patients with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) from rectal cancer is to achieve a complete resection of both tumor locations. For patients with symptomatic locally advanced rectal cancer with resectable SLM at diagnosis, our usual strategy has been the rectum first approach (RF). However, since 2014, we advocate for the interval approach (IS) that involves the administration of chemo-radiotherapy followed by the resection of the SLM in the interval of time between rectal cancer radiation and rectal surgery. METHODS: From 2010 to 2016, 16 patients were treated according to this new strategy and 19 were treated according RF strategy. Data were collected prospectively and analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective. Complete resection rate, duration of the treatment and morbi-mortality were the main outcomes. RESULTS: The complete resection rate in the IS was higher (100%, n = 16) compared to the RF (74%, n = 14, p = 0.049) and the duration of the strategy was shorter (6 vs. 9 months, respectively, p = 0.006). The incidence of severe complications after liver surgery was 14% (n = 2) in the RF and 0% in the IS (p = 1.000), and after rectal surgery was 24% (n = 4) and 12% (n = 2), respectively (p = 1.000). CONCLUSION: The IS is a feasible and safe strategy that procures higher level of complete resection rate in a shorter period of time compared to RF strategy.
Subject(s)
Hepatectomy/mortality , Liver Neoplasms/mortality , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/mortality , Rectal Neoplasms/mortality , Rectum/surgery , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Liver Neoplasms/secondary , Liver Neoplasms/surgery , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/pathology , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/surgery , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Rectal Neoplasms/surgery , Survival RateABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The optimal sequence of surgery for rectal cancer (RC) with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) is controversial. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to explore differences between the rectum first (RF) and the liver first strategy (LF) to achieve the complete resection (CR) of both tumors. METHODS: Patients diagnosed of RC with resectable or potentially resectable SLM were included. Data collected prospectively were analyzed with an intention-to-treat perspective, adjusting for between-sample differences (propensity score). The complete resection rate (CRR) was the main outcome variable. RESULTS: During a 5-year period, 23 patients underwent the LF strategy and 24 patients the RF strategy. Median overall survival (OS) was 32 months in the LF group and 41 months in the RF group (p = 0.499), and was 51 and 17 months, respectively, for patients achieving or not achieving CR of both tumors (p < 0.001). CRR's were 65% in liver first group and 63% in rectum first group, (p = 0.846). No between-strategy differences in morbidity or duration of treatment were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the notion that the achievement of CR of RC and SLM should be the goal of oncological treatment. Both RF and LF strategies are feasible and safe, but no between-strategy differences have been found in the CRR.
