Abstract

For patients with synchronous liver metastases (LM) from rectal cancer, a consensus on surgical sequencing is lacking. We compared outcomes between the reverse (hepatectomy first), classic (primary tumor resection first), and combined (simultaneous hepatectomy and primary tumor resection) approaches. A prospectively maintained database was queried for patients with rectal cancer LM diagnosed before primary tumor resection who underwent hepatectomy for LM from January 2004 to April 2021. Clinicopathological factors and survival were compared between the three approaches. Among 274 patients, 141 (51%) underwent the reverse approach; 73 (27%), the classic approach; and 60 (22%), the combined approach. Higher carcinoembryonic antigen level at LM diagnosis and higher number of LM were associated with the reverse approach. Combined approach patients had smaller tumors and underwent less complex hepatectomies. More than eight cycles of pre-hepatectomy chemotherapy and maximum diameter of LM > 5 cm were independently associated with worse overall survival (OS) (p = 0.002 and 0.027, respectively). Although 35% of reverse-approach patients did not undergo primary tumor resection, OS did not differ between groups. Additionally, 82% of incomplete reverse-approach patients ultimately did not require diversion during follow-up. RAS/TP53 co-mutation was independently associated with lack of primary resection with the reverse approach (odds ratio: 0.16, 95% CI 0.038-0.64, p = 0.010). The reverse approach results in survival similar to that of combined and classic approaches and may obviate primary rectal tumor resections and diversions. RAS/TP53 co-mutation is associated with a lower rate of completion of the reverse approach.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.