肝切除治疗结直肠癌肝转移预后影响因素研究进展

结直肠癌是我国最常见的恶性肿瘤之一。临床上,结直肠癌病人首次确诊时已有15%～25%发生肝脏转移,中位生存期约为6个月,然而行手术切除肝转移灶后5年存活率可达60%。近年来,虽然在新辅助化疗和外科技术等方面取得迅速发展,使得病人获得较长的生存时间,但肝切除仍是治愈结直肠癌肝转移（CRLM）病人的主要治疗方式。肝切除术能够改善病人预后,手术应做到R0切除或者达到无疾病证据状态（NED）;若有复发应积极施行二次手术;原发病灶部位以及淋巴结转移情况对预后影响尚有待研究;结直肠癌确诊至发生肝转移时间间隔越长预后较好（＞2年）。然而,肝转移灶的大小、数目、部位情况等,并不是影响手术预后的主要因素。总之,肝切除对CRLM病人具有良好的预后,同时需要结合病人的切缘状态、残余肝体积、原发病灶及淋巴结转移等因素综合考虑。     

射频消融与手术治疗结直肠癌肝转移疗效比较

目的 探讨结直肠癌肝转移手术切除治疗与射频消融治疗的疗效比较。方法 回顾性分析18例经射频消融治疗与26例经手术切除治疗的结直肠癌肝转移患者的术后并发症、肿瘤复发率、生存率。结果 所有患者均获得随访,围手术期死亡率为0。射频消融组患者1、3、5年生存率为77.8%（14/18）、44.4%（8/18）、27.7%（5/18）;手术组患者1、3、5年生存率为80.8%（21/26）、46.2%（12/26）、30.7%（8/26）。两组比较,差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。射频消融组存在局部复发,但肝内新发转移灶与手术组比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 射频消融治疗肝转移灶≤3个、病灶大小≤5 cm的结直肠癌肝转移安全、微创、有效,可达到手术治疗效果。但肿瘤存在局部复发,可多次射频消融治疗。     

对比微波消融与肝切除术治疗结直肠癌肝转移效果:Meta分析

目的采用Meta分析对比微波消融(MWA)与肝切除术(LR)治疗结直肠癌肝转移(CRCLM)的效果和安全性。方法检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方、中国知网、维普数据库关于MWA与LR治疗CRCLM的文献,检索时间自建库至2020年8月31日。依据纳入及排除标准筛选文献,以Review Manager 5.3和Stata 14软件进行Meta分析。结果最终纳入13篇文献、共1 534例CRCLM患者,MWA组685例,LR组849例。经异质性检验,1年总体生存率(OS)(I~2=0%,P=0.72)、3年OS(I~2=0%,P=0.86)、5年OS(I~2=0%,P=0.90)均无明显异质性,采用固定效应模型进行分析,结果显示MWA组与LR组间1年OS[HR=0.99,95%CI(0.95,1.02),P=0.44]、3年OS[HR=1.02,95%CI(0.93,1.11),P=0.74]差异均无统计学意义,LR组5年OS高于MWA组[HR=0.82,95%CI(0.69,0.97),P=0.02]。异质性检验示并发症无明显异质性(I~2=0%,P=0.78),以固定效应模型进行分析,结果显示MWA组并发症发生率低于LR组[RR=0.35,95%CI(0.23,0.52),P0.000 01)]。结论 MWA治疗CRCLM早、中期疗效(1、3年OS)与LR相当,远期疗效(5年OS)不及LR,但安全性更高。     

伴有不可切除肝转移的结直肠癌的治疗进展

结直肠癌是我国常见恶性肿瘤,发病率为27.47/10万,死亡率为13.27/10万[1]。肝脏与消化道在解剖学上关系密切,是结直肠癌最常见的转移靶器官,14%~18%患者发现结直肠癌时即可发现肝转移[2]。不接受任何治疗的肝转移患者中位生存期仅为4~21个月[3]。原位肿瘤根治性切除及肝转移瘤切除是有效的治疗手段,5年生存率为24%~40%,中位生存时间为28~46个月[4]。但是只有10%~20%患者可以进行手术切除[5]。对于不符合手术条件的患者,需要综合应用多种有效及可靠的治疗方式,最大程度延长患者生存时间,改善预后。     

结直肠癌肝转移不同治疗方式的预后比较

目的探讨不同治疗方式对结直肠癌肝转移生存时间和无复发生存时间的影响。方法回顾性分析2002年1月至2013年5月期间解放军总医院收治的71例结直肠癌肝转移患者的临床资料,分析干预对结直肠癌肝转移患者生存时间和无复发生存时间的影响。结果 71例结直肠癌肝转移患者的原发灶均行根治性切除。对肝转移灶,20例未予干预(未干预组);20例行肝转移灶切除,20例行射频消融,11例行肝转移灶切除+射频消融(所有接受干预的患者为干预组)。Cox比例风险模型结果显示,在控制其他因素的情况下,干预对生存(HR=1.724,P=0.043)和无复发生存(HR=0.701,P=0.048)均有影响,接受干预患者的生存情况和无复发生存情况较好。结论在对结直肠癌行根治性手术的条件下,对结直肠癌肝转移灶给予干预措施可以延长结直肠癌肝转移患者的生存时间和无复发生存时间。     

结直肠癌同时肝转移的手术疗效分析

目的分析结直肠癌同时肝转移的手术疗效。方法回顾性分析自1996年1月至2004年4月东方肝胆外科医院手术治疗的74例结直肠癌同时肝转移患者,其中同时手术组47例,异时手术组27例。结果无手术后1月内死亡病例,总的术后1、3、5年累积生存率分别为81．1％、41．2％和14．8％;同时手术组术后1、3、5年累积生存率分别为82．9％、40．5％和11．8％;异时手术组术后1、3、5年累积生存率分别为77．8％、42．2％和19．7％,两组比较差异无统计学意义（log-rank,P〉0．05）。两组手术并发症发生率同时组为19．1％,而异时组为11．1％（Х^2,P〉0．05）。原发肿瘤位于直肠共21例,12例行同时手术,9例行异时手术,两组术后生存率比较无明显差异（log-rank,P〉0．05）。结论结直肠癌同时肝转移患者同时手术和异时手术疗效相似,手术并发症无明显增加,同时手术是安全可行的;原发肿瘤位于直肠不能作为选择同时手术的禁忌症。     

结直肠癌肝转移消融与外科切除的治疗选择与时机

结直肠癌是全球第三高发恶性肿瘤,易发生肝转移。消融治疗与外科切除是结直肠癌肝转移有效且安全的局部治疗方法,可在全身治疗有效的基础上,有效控制局部病灶,延长患者生存期。药物治疗的进步使很多既往不宜局部治疗的结直肠癌肝转移患者获得了局部转化治疗机会。然而对于不同治疗目标、不同肿瘤负荷的结直肠癌肝转移,消融治疗与外科切除干预的时机以及术式尚没有明确的界限。本文对结直肠癌肝转移消融治疗与外科切除的研究进展以及治疗时机选择进行讨论。     

Comparative study of resection and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of solitary colorectal liver metastases

Background

We compared outcomes in patients with solitary colorectal liver metastases treated by either hepatic resection (HR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Methods

A retrospective analysis from a prospective database was performed on 67 consecutive patients with solitary colorectal liver metastases treated by either HR or RFA.

Results

Forty-two patients underwent HR and 25 patients underwent RFA. The 5-year overall and local recurrence-free survival rates after HR (50.1% and 89.7%, respectively) were higher than after RFA (25.5% and 69.7%, respectively) (P = .0263 and .028, respectively). In small tumors less than 3 cm (n = 38), the 5-year survival rates between HR and RFA were similar, including overall (56.1% vs 55.4%, P = .451) and local recurrence-free (95.7% vs 85.6%, P = .304) survival rates. On multivariate analysis, tumor size, metastases treatment, and primary node status were significant prognostic factors.

Conclusions

HR had better outcomes than RFA for recurrence and survival after treatment of solitary colorectal liver metastases. However, in tumors smaller than 3 cm, RFA can be recommended as an alternative treatment to patients who are not candidates for surgery because the liver metastases is poorly located anatomically, the functional hepatic reserve after a resection would be insufficient, the patient's comorbidity inhibits a major surgery, or extrahepatic metastases are present.     

Synchronous resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastases: comparative views of colorectal and liver surgeons

Aim The optimal management of patients presenting with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases is controversial. This survey was intended to summarize the opinions of UK colorectal and liver surgeons on the specific issues pertaining to synchronous resection. Method A validated electronic survey was sent to the consultant members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons (AUGIS). The questions were structured to allow direct comparison between the two groups of the responses obtained. Results Four hundred and twenty‐four specialist colorectal surgeons and 52 specialist hepatobiliary surgeons were identified from the register of their respective associations. Responses were obtained from 133 (31%) colorectal and 22 (42%) liver surgeons. A majority of both groups of surgeons felt that synchronous resection was a valid therapeutic option. A majority of both groups believed that synchronous resection was justified despite the options of laparoscopic surgery and enhanced recovery programmes for each discipline. Agreed possible advantages of synchronous resections were: a decrease in the overall length of hospital stay, cost and patient anxiety. The major concern about synchronous resections was an excessive overall physiological insult. Specific scenarios indicated that synchronous resection was favoured for major/complex major colorectal resection with minor liver resection or most colorectal resections not involving an anastomosis with either a minor or major liver resection. Conclusion Although significant concerns relating to synchronous resection remain amongst colorectal and liver surgeons, a majority of them felt that synchronous resections could be offered to appropriately selected patients.     

The management of solitary colorectal liver metastases

Surgical resection of solitary colorectal liver metastases is associated with long-term survival. Radiofrequency ablation used as the primary treatment option of solitary resectable colorectal liver metastases is associated with an increased risk of local recurrence that generally leads to worse survival compared to resection. In contrast with treatment of other hepatic malignancies, radiofrequency ablation is not equivalent to resection for colorectal liver metastases and should not be used as an alternative but limited to inoperable patients. Although overall survival rate after resection can be up to 71% at 5 years, the majority of patients develop recurrence. Preoperative chemotherapy contributes to decrease the risk of recurrence after resection of colorectal liver metastases. In patients with advanced solitary colorectal liver metastasis initially non suitable for resection, chemotherapy and portal vein embolization contribute to increase the number of surgical candidates whereas radiofrequency is rarely an option.     

Comparison between hepatic wedge resection and anatomic resection for colorectal liver metastases

Some investigators have suggested that wedge resection (WR) confers a higher incidence of positive margins and an inferior survival compared with anatomic resection (AR) of colorectal liver metastases (CLM). We sought to investigate the margin status, pattern of recurrence, and overall survival of patients with CLM treated with WR or AR. We identified 253 consecutive patients, in a multi-institutional database from 1991 to 2004, who underwent either WR or AR. WR was defined as a nonanatomic resection of the CLM, and AR was defined as single or multiple resections of one or two contiguous Couinaud segments. Clinicopathologic factors were analyzed with regard to pattern of recurrence and survival. One hundred six WRs were performed in 72 patients and 194 ARs in 181 patients. There was no difference in the rate of positive surgical margin (8.3%), overall recurrence rates, or patterns of recurrence between patients treated with WR vs. AR. Patients who had a positive surgical resection margin were more likely to recur at the surgical margin regardless of whether they underwent WR or AR. The median survival was 76.6 months for WR and 80.8 months for AR, with 5-year actuarial survival rates of 61% and 60%, respectively. AR is not superior to WR in terms of tumor clearance, pattern of recurrence, or survival. WR should remain an integral component of the surgical treatment of CLM. Presented at the 2005 American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Congress, Hollywood, Florida, April 14–17, 2005.     

Major hepatectomy in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases: whether or not a contraindication to simultaneous colorectal and liver resection?

OBJECTIVE: Synchronous hepatic lesions account for 15-25% of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer and its optimal timing to surgery is not completely defined, but simultaneous colorectal and liver resection is recently gaining acceptance, at least in patients with a right colonic primary and liver metastases that need a minor hepatectomy to be fully resected. METHOD: From September 2002 to December 2004, 16 patients underwent simultaneous resection as treatment of synchronous colorectal liver resection; in 10 patients (62.5%) a major hepatectomy was performed. RESULTS: The mean duration of intervention was 322.5 +/- 59.5 min, operative mortality and morbidity rates was 0% and 25% respectively; the hospitalization was 14.4 (range 8-60) days on average. Mean follow-up was 14 months and actuarial survival was 76.5% at 1 year and 63.5% at 2 years. CONCLUSION: We concluded that simultaneous colonic and liver resection should be undertaken in selected patients with synchronous colorectal liver resection regardless of the extent of hepatectomy; major liver resection, in fact, seems capable of providing better oncological results, allowing resection of liver micrometastases that, in almost one-third of the patients, are located in the same liver lobe of macroscopic lesions, without increased morbidity rates.     

Repeat hepatic resection as effective treatment for recurrent colorectal liver metastases

Background: Approximately 20–40% of patients who undergo liver resection for colorectal metastases develop recurrent disease confined to the liver. The goals of this study were to determine whether the survival benefit of repeat hepatic resection justified the potential morbidity and mortality. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on all patients who underwent liver resection for colorectal cancer metastases between 1983 and 1995 (N=202). Repeat liver resections were performed on 23 patients for recurrent metastases. Results: There were no operative deaths in the 23 patients, and the postoperative morbidity rate was 22%. The 5-year actuarial survival rate after repeat resection was 32%, with a median length of survival of 39.9 months. There were three patients who survived for >5 years after repeat resection. Sixteen patients (70%) developed recurrent disease at a median interval of 11 months after the second resection; 10 of these 16 patients (62%) had new hepatic metastases. No clinical or pathological factors were significant in predicting long-term survival. Conclusions: Repeat liver resection for recurrent colorectal metastases (a) can be performed safely with acceptable mortality and morbidity rates and (b) may result in long-term survival in some patients.Presented at the 49th Annual Cancer Symposium of The Society of Surgical Oncology, Atlanta, Georgia, March 21–24, 1996.     

Surgical management of recurrence after resection of colorectal liver metastases

The optimal treatment for recurrent lesions after hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases is controversial. We report the outcome of aggressive surgery for recurrent disease after the initial hepatectomy and the influence on quality of life of such treatment. Forty-five (70%) of the 64 surviving patients developed recurrence after the initial hepatectomy for liver metastases. The determinants of hepatic recurrence were the distribution and the number of liver metastases. Twenty-eight (62%) of patients with recurrence underwent resection. A second hepatectomy was performed in 20 patients, and a third hepatectomy was done in 5 patients. Ten patients with pulmonary metastasis underwent partial lung resection on 14 occasions, while resection of brain metastases was performed in 3 patients on 5 occasions. There were no operative deaths after resection of recurrent disease. The morbidity rate was 28% after repeat hepatectomy, 21% after pulmonary resection, and 0% after resection of brain metastasis. The Karnofsky performance status (PS) after the last surgery was not significantly different from that after the initial hepatectomy. The 3- and 5-year survival rates after the second hepatectomy were 54% and 14%, respectively. The 3-and 5-year survival rates of the patients undergoing resection of extrahepatic recurrence were both 17%. The survival rate after resection of recurrent disease (n=28) was significantly better than that of patients (n=17) with unresectable recurrence (P < 0.05). For the 66 patients with colorectal liver metastases, the 5-year survival rate after initial hepatectomy was 50%. The distribution and the number of liver metastases and the presence of extrahepatic disease, as single factors, significantly affected prognosis after the initial hepatectomy. Multivariate analysis revealed that only the presence of extrahepatic metastasis and a disease-free interval of less than 6 months were independent predictors of survival after the initial and second hepatectomy, respectively. It is concluded that aggressive surgery is an effective strategy for selected patients with recurrence after initial hepatectomy. Careful selection of candidates for repeat surgery will yield increased clinical benefit, including long-term survival.     

腹腔镜联合同期开放手术与全开放手术治疗同时性结直肠癌肝转移临床对比研究

目的对比腹腔镜结直肠癌切除(LCS)联合同期开放肝转移灶切除术与同期全开放切除术(TOS)治疗同时性结直肠癌肝转移(sCRLM)的临床疗效,探讨LCS联合同期开放肝转移灶切除术的安全性、短期及中长期疗效。方法回顾性分析2010年1月至2019年3月于海军军医大学附属长海医院肛肠外科行同期切除的sCRLM病人的临床病理资料,其中84例病人行LCS联合同期开放肝转移灶切除术,108例病人行同期TOS,采用倾向得分匹配方法(PSM)对两类病人进行1∶1匹配,最终LCS组(LCS联合同期开放肝转移灶切除术)和TOS组(行同期TOS)两组分别纳入69例病人,对两组病人的临床结果进行对比分析。结果所有病人无90 d内死亡病例。LCS组无中转开放手术病例。LCS组与TOS组相比,术后进食流质时间缩短[(3.54±1.43)d vs.(4.74±1.29)d,t=-5.186 P<0.001],术后住院天数减少[(8.58±4.23)d vs.(13.33±5.21)d,t=-5.880 P<0.001],并发症发生率降低[14例(20.3%)vs.33例(47.8%),χ^2=11.648 P=0.01],术中出血量[(433.77±423.45)mL vs(.422.46±292.37)mL,t=0.182 P=0.855]及手术时间[(277.54±81.88)min vs(.265.80±82.56)min,t=0.839 P=0.403]差异无统计学意义。3年存活率差异无统计学意义(60.0%vs.54.7%,χ^2=1.979,P=0.160),术后无瘤存活率差异无统计学意义(χ^2=3.542,P=0.076)。结论LCS联合同期开放肝转移灶切除术用于治疗sCRLM安全可行,相比传统同期TOS,短期疗效更优,且不影响中长期肿瘤学预后。