Multi-modality treatment of colorectal liver metastases

Liver metastases synchronously or metachronously occur in approximately 50% of colorectal cancer patients. Multimodality comprehensive treatment is the best therapeutic strategy for these patients. However, the optimal pattern of multimodality therapy is still controversial, and it raises several signif icant concerns. Liver resection is the most important treatment for colorectal liver metastases. The defi nition of resectability has shifted to focus on the completion of R0 resection and normal liver function maintenance. The role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy still needs to be clarified. The management of either progression or complete remission during neoadjuvant chemotherapy is challenging. The optimal sequencing of surgery and chemotherapy in synchronous colorectal liver metastases patients is still unclear. Conversional chemotherapy, portal vein embolization, two-stage resection, and tumor ablation are effective approaches to improve resectability for initially unresectable patients. Several technical issues and concerns related to these methods need to be further explored. For patients with def initely unresectable liver disease, the necessity of resecting the primary tumor is still debatable, and evaluatingand predicting the eff icacy of targeted therapy deserve further investigation. This review discusses different patterns and important concerns of multidisciplinary treatment of colorectal liver metastases.

Predicting prognosis of rectal cancer patients with total mesorectal excision using molecular markers

AIM:To explore the prognostic variables in rectal cancer patients undergoing curative total mesorectal excision and the effect of postoperative chemotherapy in advanced rectal cancer. METHODS:A total of 259 consecutive rectal cancer patients treated with curative total mesorectal excision between 1999 and 2004 were collected. p53,p21,PCNA,and CD44v6 were examined using immunohistochemistry (IHC). The correlation between clinicopathological or molecular variables and clinical outcomes,including local recurrence,metastasis,disease-free survival and overall survival,was analyzed. RESULTS:The median follow-up was 44 mo. Five-year survival rates and 5-year disease free survival rates were 75.43% and 70.32%,respectively. Multi-analysis revealed TNM staging,preoperative CEA,and CD44v6 level were independent risk factors predicting overall survival or disease free survival. The hazard ratio of peroperative CEA was 2.65 (95% CI 1.4-5) and 3.10 (95% CI 1.37-6.54) for disease free survival and overall survival,respectively. The hazard ratio of CD44v6 was 1.93 (95% CI 1.04-3.61) and 2.21 (95% CI 1.01-4.88) for disease free survival and overall survival,respectively. TNM staging was the only risk factor predicting local recurrence. Postoperative chemotherapy without radiotherapy did not improve patients' outcome. CONCLUSION:TNM staging,preoperative CEA and CD44v6 were independent prognostic factors for rectal cancer patients with total mesorectal excision. Postoperative chemotherapy may be only used together with radiotherapy for rectal cancer patients.

Laparoscopic vs open abdominoperineal resection in the multimodality management of low rectal cancers

AIM: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection compared with the open procedure in multimodality management of rectal cancer.METHODS: A total of 106 rectal cancer patients who underwent open abdominoperineal resection(OAPR) were matched with 106 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection(LAPR) in a 1 to 1 fashion, between 2009 and 2013 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. Propensity score matching was carried out based on age, gender, pathological staging of the disease and administration of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Data regarding preoperative staging, surgical technique, pathologicalresults, postoperative recovery and complications were reviewed and compared between the LAPR and OAPR groups. Perineal closure around the stoma and pelvic floor reconstruction were performed only in OAPR, not in LAPR. Therefore, abdominoperineal resection procedure-specific surgical complications including parastomal hernia and perineal wound complications were compared between the open and laparoscopic procedure. Regular surveillance of the two cohorts was carried out to gather prognostic data. Diseasefree survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with locally advanced disease treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgical resection. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the LAPR group and the OAPR group in terms of clinicopathological features. The operation time(180.8 ± 47.8 min vs 172.1 ± 49.2 min, P = 0.190), operative blood loss(93.9 ± 60.0 m L vs 88.4 ± 55.2 m L, P = 0.494), total number of retrieved lymph nodes(12.9 ± 6.9 vs 12.9 ± 5.4, P = 0.974), surgical complications(12.3% vs 15.1%, P = 0.549) and pathological characteristics were comparable between the LAPR and OAPR group, respectively. Compared with OAPR patients, LAPR patients showed significantly shorter postoperative analgesia(2.4 ± 0.7 d vs 2.7 ± 0.6 d, P < 0.001), earlier first flatus(57.3 ± 7.9 h vs 63.5 ± 9.2 h, P < 0.001), shorter urinary drainage time(6.5 ± 3.4 d vs 7.8 ± 1.3 d, P < 0.001), and shorter postoperative admission(11.2 ± 4.7 d vs 12.6 ± 4.0 d, P = 0.014). With regard to APR-specific complications(perineal wound complications and parastomal hernia), there were no significant differences between the two groups. Similar results were found in the 26 pairs of patients administered neoadjuvant chemoradiation in subgroup analysis. During the follow-up period, no port site recurrences were observed. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer is safe, and is associated with earlier recovery and shorter admission time in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation.