微波消融治疗24例结直肠癌肝转移的临床疗效分析

目的 评价微波消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移的治疗效果.方法 2004年1月至2011年8月超声引导下微波消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移患者24例共70个病灶.男性15例,女性9例,中位年龄66岁(44～78岁).所有病灶的直径均在0.8～5.0 cm,患者总共接受了30次微波消融手术.经皮穿刺微波消融19次共35个病灶;开腹消融11次共35个病灶.定期随访观察消融效果,并采用Kaplan-Meier法进行生存分析.结果 全组无围手术期死亡,相关并发症发生率为6.7%.11次开腹微波消融术术中B超发现45个病灶,多于术前B超发现的38个病灶和CT检查发现的35个病灶.11次开腹微波消融术后1个月病灶均完全坏死,19次经皮微波消融术后1个月的病灶完全坏死率为88.6%(P=0.122).直径≤3.0 cm的病灶坏死率为96.4%,3.1～5 cm的病灶坏死率为85.7%(P=0.212).24例患者全部得到随访,随访时间为18～75个月.术后第3个月和第6个月时,19例经皮消融的患者分别有3例和10例出现肝内新发转移灶,而开腹消融术后复发者分别为0例和1例(P=0.046).全组患者的中位生存期为28个月,1、2、3年生存率分别为83.3%、54.3%、23.3%.结论 开腹微波消融术后较经皮消融早期肝内新发转移灶的发生率较低.微波消融是治疗直径≤5 cm的结直肠癌肝转移的安全有效方法.     

结直肠癌同时性肝转移行一期和二期肝切除术安全性的荟萃分析

目的 评估结直肠癌同时性肝转移患者一期和二期肝切除术的安全性.方法 通过检索PubMed/Medline,ISI Web of Knowledge,Springer link,Ebscohost,Elsevier Wiley Interscience和Google Scholar,搜集1989年1月至2009年3月关于结直肠癌同时性肝转移患者行一期和二期肝切除术的对照研究,对一期和二期手术组患者的手术并发症发生率和围手术期死亡率进行荟萃分析.结果 检索到7篇文献共计1390例结直肠癌同时性肝转移行肝切除术的患者,其中一期手术者495例,二期手术者895例.一期手术者围手术期死亡率（2.4%）高于二期手术者（1.1%）,差异有统计学意义（Peto OR 3.39,95% CI 1.29～8.93,P=0.01）;两组手术并发症发生率分别为33.9%和29.8%,两组比较差异无统计学意义[OR（随机）0.88,95% CI 0.51～1.51,P=0.64].结论 同时性结直肠癌肝转移患者有选择地行二期手术是合理和安全的.     

同期肝切除治疗结直肠癌同时性肝转移

目的探讨结直肠癌同时性肝转移肝肠同期手术的疗效。方法回顾性分析1994年8月至2004年12月在我院行外科手术治疗的121例同时性结直肠癌肝转移患者的临床资料。结果在121例同时性结直肠癌肝转移患者中,99例行结直肠癌根治性切除术,剔除2例行原位肝移植患者后,同期肝切除组41例（A组）,对肝转移瘤行姑息外科治疗组56例（B组）,即转移瘤未能完全经手术切除者,A、B组患者性别、年龄、原发瘤部位、浸润深度、淋巴结转移等差异均无统计学意义,肝转移瘤数目（x^2=40.41,P＜0.05）、肝转移瘤分布（x^2=11.61,P＜0.05）差异有统计学意义;两组患者中位生存期分别为28.9个月、17.1个月,5年生存率分别为14％、0,其中A组患者中位无瘤生存期为19.5个月,1、3、5年生存率为93%、44%和14%。结论同期肝切除能为部分结直肠癌同时性肝转移患者提供治愈机会,对于合适的患者应力争行同期肝切除术。     

肝切除和微波消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移的效果比较

目的 比较肝切除和微波消融（microwave ablation,MWA）治疗结直肠癌肝转移（CRLM）的疗效。方法 回顾性分析2013年1月至2020年7月98例CRLM患者的临床资料,根据治疗方法不同分为2组,肝切除组31例,MWA组67例。MWA组共治疗105个病灶,其中特殊部位病灶36个,非特殊部位病灶69个。Kaplan-Meier法绘制生存曲线,Log-rank（Mantel-Cox）检验比较两组肿瘤复发率和生存差异。χ²检验比较两组消融不完全率,单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析消融不完全的危险因素。结果 随访截止2020年10月30日,中位随访时间38（4～94）个月。肝切除组中位肝内复发时间22（95%CI 13～49）个月,明显长于MWA组9（95%CI 6～12）个月（P＜0.001）。肝切除组中位生存时间为60（95%CI 33～86）个月,也明显长于MWA组36（95%CI 30～41）个月（P=0.040）。肝切除组和MWA组1、5年累积生存率无统计学差异（100% vs97%,χ² =0.945,P=1.000;36% vs 27%,χ²=0.437,P=0.508）。肝切除组3年累积生存率高于MWA组（74% vs 48%,χ² =6.013,P=0.014）。特殊部位组消融不完全率明显高于非特殊部位[33.3%（12/36）vs 15.9%（11/69）,χ² =4.183,P=0.041]。肿瘤直径≥3 cm、特殊部位、CEA≥200 ng/mL是消融不完全的危险因素,其中肿瘤直径≥3 cm是消融不完全的独立危险因素。结论 可切除性CRLM手术切除的疗效优于微波消融,直径大于3 cm的肿瘤不宜微波消融治疗。     

肝切除术治疗结直肠癌肝转移的患者选择

<正>1简介结直肠癌最常见的血行转移器官为肝脏。大约有一半的患者在结直肠癌病程中发展为肝转移癌[1]。针对肝转移病灶,肝切除术仍是唯一可能的根治性治疗,其5年生存率约50%[2],10年治愈率接近20%[3]。此外,有效的系统和局部化疗结合手术切除可以达到在未治愈的情况下使患者长期存活[4]。因此,肝切除的目标和适应     

射频消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移的研究进展

结直肠癌肝转移(CRLM)是结直肠癌治疗中的难点问题,也是结直肠癌患者最主要的死亡原因。近年来,射频消融(RFA)作为肝肿瘤局部治疗的手段之一,被探索性地应用于CRLM的综合治疗中,显示出微创、安全、有效、可重复治疗等优势。本文将综述RFA及其联合其他治疗手段治疗不同分期CRLM的研究进展,期望为CRLM综合治疗提供更...     

微波消融对比射频消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移瘤的荟萃分析

目的通过荟萃分析探究结肠癌肝转移瘤(CRLM)局部消融的最佳治疗方法。方法系统检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、CNKI以及Cochrane Library数据库, 检索时间为建库至2022年8月22日。通过纳入和排除标准筛选出比较微波消融(WMA)和射频消融(RFA)治疗CRLM的文献。并使用Review Manager 5.3软件对围手术期结局和生存数据进行统计汇总及分析。结果共纳入5篇回顾性研究, 总样本量648例, 其中WMA组316例(48.8%), RFA组332例(51.2%)。荟萃分析结果显示, WMA组的局部复发率低于RFA组, 两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。WMA组患者的1、2年疾病无进展生存期优于RFA组, 两组间差异有统计学意义(1年:P=0.04, HR=1.77, 95%CI:1.04～3.02;2年:P=0.02, HR=1.60, 95%CI:1.09～2.35)。结论对于CRLM的治疗, WMA在局部控制率和1、2年疾病无进展生存期方面优于RFA。     

射频消融对比手术切除治疗孤立性结直肠癌肝转移肿瘤的Meta分析

目的:比较射频消融(RFA)和手术切除对孤立性结直肠癌肝转移的疗效.方法:计算机检索国内外多个数据库,收集RFA和手术切除治疗孤立性结直肠癌肝转移的临床对照试验,按Cochrane系统评价方法对纳入研究的质量进行评价,用RevMan 5.0软件对资料进行Meta分析.结果:最终纳入9个研究,共1 259例患者,其中RFA 440例,手术切除819例.Meta分析结果显示,RFA患者较手术切除患者5年生存率明显降低(P=0.02),术后总体复发率(p=0.01)和局部复发率均明显增高(P=0.003);两者在治疗直径＜3 cm的肿瘤上术后5年生存率无明显差异(P=0.43).结论:手术切除治疗孤立性结直肠癌肝转移疗效优于RFA,但肿瘤直径＜3 cm时,可考虑采用RFA.     

术中超声辅助肝切除联合射频消融根治性治疗双叶弥散性结直肠癌肝转移

目的 探索术中超声辅助下肝切除联合射频消融根治性治疗双叶弥散性结直肠癌肝转移的安全性和可行性.方法 2006年1月至2012年1月期间,5例被2名以上专家判断失去手术时机的双叶弥散性结直肠癌肝转移患者,成功实施根治性治疗.其中男2例,女3例.平均年龄57岁 (44～65岁).回顾性分析其手术相关临床指标.结果 术中超声发现肝脏转移病灶平均20.4个 (15～28个),围手术期死亡0例,肝功能衰竭0例.围手术并发症:腹腔感染1例,大量腹水2例,胸腔积液4例.术后1个月影像学检查和血清CEA等证实达到根治性治疗.结论 术中超声辅助下一期肝切除联合射频消融治疗是双叶弥散性结直肠癌肝转移治疗的一种很好的选择,可以提高转移性肝癌的切除率.     

肝切除术治疗结直肠癌肝转移的术前影像学检查

尽管近来在化疗药上取的了很多进步,但是对于转移性的结直肠癌治疗预后仍然很差,就过去20年而言,肝脏转移灶切除术已作为一种有希望的术式,它能改善结直肠癌肝转移患者的生存率,而且该技术在某些案例中显示出长期的治愈效果.为了扩大转移灶切除术的安全性及功效,合适的术前影像是必须的.CT,MRI,PET方面的进步已经改善了隐蔽病灶的探测而且获得更为清晰解剖形态.而CT,PET,MRI在探查大的肝转移瘤上有相似的敏感性,相对于CT及FDG-PET而言,MRI更擅于探知厘米级以下的肝转移灶,特别是与弥散加权成像(DWI)及肝细胞特异性对比剂结合时效果更显著,CT或许可用来作为一种筛选模式或术前计划制定如剩余肝体积的计算或显露肝动脉灌注分布的动脉解剖情况,而技术进步已经带来了史无前例的高画质与高清晰度的图片,但它仍然无法取代专业的,娴熟的具有丰富经验的影像学专家的角色.     

TACE联合热消融与单独TACE治疗结直肠癌肝转移疗效:Meta分析

目的 系统评价TACE联合热消融与单独TACE治疗结直肠癌肝转移(CRLM)的疗效。方法 检索Embase、Cochrane Library、PubMed、中国知网、维普数据库和万方医学网中自建库至2021年11月25日关于TACE联合热消融与单独TACE治疗CRLM的文献,依据纳入及排除标准进行筛选;以RevMan 5.3软件和Stata 15.1软件分析TACE联合热消融与单独TACE治疗CRLM的疗效。结果 共纳入15篇文献、1 570例CRLM患者。TACE联合热消融治疗有效率[OR=4.39,95%CI(3.16,6.12)]、疾病控制率[OR=3.30,95%CI(2.22,4.92)]及术后1年[OR=3.00,95%CI(2.12,4.25)]、2年[OR=3.95,95%CI(2.94,5.29)]、3年生存率[OR=7.05,95%CI(4.73,10.50)]均高于单独TACE (P均＜0.05)。结论 TACE联合热消融治疗CRLM优于单独TACE。     

超声引导经皮微波消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移瘤不良事件及其影响因素

目的 探讨超声引导经皮微波消融（MWA）治疗结直肠癌肝转移瘤（CRLM）不良事件（AE）及其影响因素。方法 回顾性分析427例接受超声引导经皮MWA治疗的CRLM患者,共治疗614例次、1 334个病灶,统计术后AE发生率及其影响因素。结果 AE总发生率4.89%（30/614）,无消融相关死亡。影响AE的危险因素包括穿刺针数（OR=1.301,P=0.005）、高危部位病灶（OR=2.829,P=0.025）、病灶数>5（OR=4.655,P=0.010）、腹腔手术史（OR=7.716,P=0.047）及肝吸虫病（OR=17.683,P=0.005）。结论 超声引导经皮MWA治疗CRLM的AE发生率较低,AE发生与病灶数目、高危部位、穿刺针数、腹腔手术史及肝吸虫病有关。     

超声引导下热消融联合免疫检查点抑制剂治疗结直肠癌肝转移研究进展

超声引导下热消融用于治疗肝脏肿瘤,可在破坏原位肿瘤细胞同时诱导机体免疫反应,增强免疫效应。免疫检查点抑制剂（ICI）不良反应少,效果强且持久,通过调节免疫微环境选择性地增强宿主对恶性肿瘤的免疫反应。本文就超声引导下热消融联合ICI治疗结直肠癌肝转移的研究进展进行综述。     

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.     

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.     

Infectious complications in combined colon resection and ablation of colorectal liver metastases

Background

The multifactorial incidence of infectious complications carries considerable consequences for patients undergoing more extensive surgery with intent to cure metastatic colorectal cancer. Advances in ablation techniques have emerged as an efficacious method in regional control for liver metastasis from colorectal cancer; however, the degree of increased risk of infectious complications when ablation is performed in combination with colon resection has not been defined.

Methods

An analysis of a single institution's prospective database from August 1998 to December 2012 was performed for patients undergoing colon resection. Patients were stratified into a colon resection combined with either microwave ablation (MWA) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared to a colon resection only group. Variables included baseline clinicopathologic data, type of operation, complication grade, and infectious outcome. Fisher exact test, Student t test, and analysis of variance were used to detect significance levels of P values less than .05.

Results

A total of 132 patients with colon cancer of various origins were identified. The group of colon resection combined with RFA and/or MWA was 53 patients (34 male:19 female) and was compared to a matched group of 79 patients (40 male:39 female) who underwent colon resection alone. Median age (58 vs 60 years; P = .209), complication rate (60.7% vs 62.5%; P = .722), infection rate (28.7% vs 35.4%; P = 1.0), mean blood loss (352.7 vs 468.4 mL; P = .452), mean blood transfused (1.36 vs .76 U; P = .247), and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (47.1% vs 51.85%; P = .724) were all similar between the ablation group and colon only group, respectively. Transfusion rate was higher in the ablation group (39.6% vs 18.9%; P = .016). Overall complication rate was 60.6%, with 32.6% infections. One mortality was observed in each group. High-grade (grade, III to V) complications (35.8% vs 18.9%; P = .0112) and liver-specific complications (n = 4; P = .024) were significantly increased in the combined ablation group.

Conclusions

Combining MWA or RFA techniques with colon resection for liver metastasis appears to have similar infectious and overall complication rates when compared to performing an isolated resection of the primary colon cancer alone, although there may be a higher degree of complication seen in the more aggressive approach for curative intent in patients with colorectal liver metastasis.     

Impact of parenchymal preserving surgery on survival and recurrence after liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis

Background

This study aimed to investigate the impact of non‐anatomical liver resection (NAR) versus anatomical resection (AR) in patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM), with regard to perioperative and long‐term outcomes.

Methods

Analysis of prospectively collected data for patients with CRLM who underwent either AR or NAR between January 1993 and August 2011 was performed. The impact of AR and NAR on morbidity, mortality, margin positivity, redo liver resections, overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) was analysed.

Results

A total of 1574 resections for CRLM were performed. A total of 249 were redo resections and 334 patients underwent combined AR and NAR, hence, 583 were excluded. In total, 582 AR and 409 NAR were performed. The median age was 66 years (range 23.8–91.8). Median follow up was 32.2 months (interquartile range 17.5–56.9). The need for postoperative transfusion (11.6% versus 2.2%, P = <0.0001), overall complications (25% versus 10.7%, P < 0.0001) and 90‐day mortality (4.9% versus 1.2%, P < 0.0001) was higher in the AR group. R0 and R1 resection rates (AR 26.2% NAR 25%, P = 0.69) and number of patients with intrahepatic recurrence was similar between the two groups (AR 17.5% NAR 22%, P = 0.08). However, the need for redo liver surgery was higher in NAR group 15.4% versus 8.7% (P < 0.001). The OS (NAR 34.1 months versus AR 31.4 months, P = 0.002) and DFS were longer in the NAR group (NAR 18.8 months versus AR 16.9 months, P = 0.031).

Conclusions

A parenchymal preserving surgery (NAR) is associated with lower complication rates and better OS and DFS when compared with AR without compromising margin status. However, NAR increases the need for repeat liver resections.