Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: what determines the risk of unfavorable outcomes? An international multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Journal
International journal of surgery (London, England)
ISSN: 1743-9159
Titre abrégé: Int J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101228232
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Mar 2023
01 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
01
08
2022
accepted:
12
11
2022
medline:
26
4
2023
pubmed:
24
4
2023
entrez:
24
04
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of a simultaneous resection (SIMR) in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has increased over the past decades. However, it remains unclear when a SIMR is beneficial and when it should be avoided. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was therefore to compare the outcomes of a SIMR for sCRLM in different settings, and to assess which factors are independently associated with unfavorable outcomes. To perform this retrospective cohort study, patients with sCRLM undergoing SIMR (2004-2019) were extracted from an international multicenter database, and their outcomes were compared after stratification according to the type of liver and colorectal resection performed. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes were identified through multivariable logistic regression. Overall, 766 patients were included, encompassing colorectal resections combined with a major liver resection (n=122), minor liver resection in the anterolateral (n=407), or posterosuperior segments ('Technically major', n=237). Minor and technically major resections, compared to major resections, were more often combined with a rectal resection (29.2 and 36.7 vs. 20.5%, respectively, both P=0.003) and performed fully laparoscopic (22.9 and 23.2 vs. 6.6%, respectively, both P = 0.003). Major and technically major resections, compared to minor resections, were more often associated with intraoperative transfusions (42.9 and 38.8 vs. 20%, respectively, both P = 0.003) and unfavorable incidents (9.6 and 9.8 vs. 3.3%, respectively, both P≤0.063). Major resections were associated, compared to minor and technically major resections, with a higher overall morbidity rate (64.8 vs. 50.4 and 49.4%, respectively, both P≤0.024) and a longer length of stay (12 vs. 10 days, both P≤0.042). American Society of Anesthesiologists grades ≥3 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.671, P=0.015] and undergoing a major liver resection (aOR: 1.788, P=0.047) were independently associated with an increased risk of severe morbidity, while undergoing a left-sided colectomy was associated with a decreased risk (aOR: 0.574, P=0.013). SIMR should primarily be reserved for sCRLM patients in whom a minor or technically major liver resection would suffice and those requiring a left-sided colectomy. These findings should be confirmed by randomized studies comparing SIMR with staged resections.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The use of a simultaneous resection (SIMR) in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has increased over the past decades. However, it remains unclear when a SIMR is beneficial and when it should be avoided. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was therefore to compare the outcomes of a SIMR for sCRLM in different settings, and to assess which factors are independently associated with unfavorable outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
To perform this retrospective cohort study, patients with sCRLM undergoing SIMR (2004-2019) were extracted from an international multicenter database, and their outcomes were compared after stratification according to the type of liver and colorectal resection performed. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes were identified through multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 766 patients were included, encompassing colorectal resections combined with a major liver resection (n=122), minor liver resection in the anterolateral (n=407), or posterosuperior segments ('Technically major', n=237). Minor and technically major resections, compared to major resections, were more often combined with a rectal resection (29.2 and 36.7 vs. 20.5%, respectively, both P=0.003) and performed fully laparoscopic (22.9 and 23.2 vs. 6.6%, respectively, both P = 0.003). Major and technically major resections, compared to minor resections, were more often associated with intraoperative transfusions (42.9 and 38.8 vs. 20%, respectively, both P = 0.003) and unfavorable incidents (9.6 and 9.8 vs. 3.3%, respectively, both P≤0.063). Major resections were associated, compared to minor and technically major resections, with a higher overall morbidity rate (64.8 vs. 50.4 and 49.4%, respectively, both P≤0.024) and a longer length of stay (12 vs. 10 days, both P≤0.042). American Society of Anesthesiologists grades ≥3 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.671, P=0.015] and undergoing a major liver resection (aOR: 1.788, P=0.047) were independently associated with an increased risk of severe morbidity, while undergoing a left-sided colectomy was associated with a decreased risk (aOR: 0.574, P=0.013).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
SIMR should primarily be reserved for sCRLM patients in whom a minor or technically major liver resection would suffice and those requiring a left-sided colectomy. These findings should be confirmed by randomized studies comparing SIMR with staged resections.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37093069
doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000068
pii: 01279778-202303000-00009
pmc: PMC10389225
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05475041']
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
244-254Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Références
Surgery. 2021 Jul;170(1):160-166
pubmed: 33674128
HPB (Oxford). 2021 Aug;23(8):1277-1284
pubmed: 33541806
Br J Surg. 2006 Jul;93(7):872-8
pubmed: 16671066
ISRN Surg. 2013 May 16;2013:625093
pubmed: 23762627
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Int J Surg. 2021 Dec;96:106165
pubmed: 34774726
Int J Surg. 2020 Feb;74:68-75
pubmed: 31843676
Ann Surg. 2006 Aug;244(2):254-9
pubmed: 16858188
Ann Surg Treat Res. 2019 Oct;97(4):184-193
pubmed: 31620392
Surgery. 2011 May;149(5):713-24
pubmed: 21236455
World J Surg. 2015 Oct;39(10):2573-82
pubmed: 26126422
J Am Coll Surg. 2007 May;204(5):854-62; discussion 862-4
pubmed: 17481498
Surg Endosc. 2020 Jan;34(1):349-360
pubmed: 30989374
Br J Surg. 2006 Aug;93(8):921-8
pubmed: 16845692
Surgery. 2011 May;149(5):680-8
pubmed: 21316725
HPB (Oxford). 2022 Feb;24(2):255-266
pubmed: 34305003
JAMA Surg. 2021 Aug 1;156(8):e212064
pubmed: 34076671
J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Nov;19(11):1982-94
pubmed: 26239515
J Am Coll Surg. 2003 Aug;197(2):233-41; discussion 241-2
pubmed: 12892803
Cancer Treat Rev. 2015 Nov;41(9):729-41
pubmed: 26417845
Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 Mar;29(3):1939-1951
pubmed: 34716838
Colorectal Dis. 2018 Jun;20(6):486-495
pubmed: 29338108
BMC Geriatr. 2019 Jul 3;19(1):182
pubmed: 31269921
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Dec;14(12):3481-91
pubmed: 17805933
HPB (Oxford). 2002;4(2):99; author reply 99-100
pubmed: 18332933
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Dec;21(12):1676-1686
pubmed: 31208900
Arch Surg. 2000 Apr;135(4):473-9; discussion 479-80
pubmed: 10768715
Cancer Epidemiol. 2020 Aug;67:101760
pubmed: 32562887
HPB (Oxford). 2014 Dec;16(12):1117-26
pubmed: 24965845
Br J Surg. 2020 Feb;107(3):258-267
pubmed: 31603540
Ann Surg. 2015 Apr;261(4):619-29
pubmed: 25742461
Ann Surg. 2018 Jan;267(1):13-17
pubmed: 28187043
Ann Surg. 2021 Jan 1;273(1):49-56
pubmed: 32209911
World J Surg. 2014 Dec;38(12):3169-74
pubmed: 25159116
HPB (Oxford). 2018 Jan;20(1):11-19
pubmed: 28888775
J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Mar;20(3):554-63
pubmed: 26471363
JAMA Surg. 2013 Jun;148(6):504-10
pubmed: 23754534
Br J Surg. 2003 Aug;90(8):956-62
pubmed: 12905548
J Clin Med Res. 2019 Aug;11(8):572-582
pubmed: 31413769
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020 Jul;46(7):1203-1213
pubmed: 32178961
World J Surg Oncol. 2020 Sep 21;18(1):251
pubmed: 32958079
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2007 Oct;22(10):1269-76
pubmed: 17318552