Abstract
PurposeTo compare long-term outcomes of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for colorectal liver metastases in perivascular versus non-perivascular locations.MethodsThis retrospective study included 388 consecutive patients with colorectal liver metastases (246 men, 142 women; age range 27–86 years) who underwent percutaneous radiofrequency ablation between January 2006 and December 2018. Propensity-score matching was performed for groups with perivascular and non-perivascular colorectal liver metastases. Rates of accumulative local tumor progression, overall survival, intra/extrahepatic recurrence, and complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsWe successfully matched 104 patients each in the perivascular and non-perivascular groups (mean age: 60.1 ± 11.5 and 60.1 ± 11.3 years, respectively). Cumulative local tumor progression rates at 6 months, 1 years, 3 years, and 5 years, respectively, were 8.8%,14.8%, 18.9%, and 18.9% in the perivascular group and 8.8%, 13.1%, 15.5%, and 15.5% in the non-perivascular group. The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year overall survival rates, respectively, were 91.3%, 45.6%, 23.9%, and 18.7% in the perivascular group and 88.0%, 47.2%, 27.2%, and 22.6% in the non-perivascular group. No significant between-group differences were detected in cumulative local tumor progression (p=0.567, hazard ratio: 1.224) or overall survival (p = 0.801, hazard ratio: 1.047). The major complication rate was 1.0% (1/104, p > 0.999) in both groups. Tumor size was the only independent prognostic factor for local tumor progression (hazard ratio: 2.314; p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis for overall colorectal liver metastases, tumor diameter >3 cm, tumor location in the right colon, multiple tumors, and extrahepatic metastases before radiofrequency ablation (hazard ratios: 2.046, 1.920, 1.706, and 1.892, respectively; all p < 0.001) and intrahepatic recurrence (hazard ratio: 1.564; p = 0.002) were associated with poor overall survival.ConclusionCumulative local tumor progression, overall survival, and major complications rates did not differ significantly between perivascular and non-perivascular colorectal liver metastases after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation. For perivascular colorectal liver metastases, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation is a safe and effective treatment option.
Highlights
The liver is the most frequent site of metastases from colorectal cancer [1], and surgical resection is a standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases (CLM)
We identified that patients with CLM who underwent percutaneous Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) had similar rates of cumulative local tumor progression (LTP), overall survival (OS), and major complications in the perivascular and nonperivascular groups, both before and after propensity-score matching
Surgical resection is a standard treatment for patients with CLM [4], RFA cannot completely replace surgery, because of the low progression-free survival for lesions > 3cm [24]
Summary
The liver is the most frequent site of metastases from colorectal cancer [1], and surgical resection is a standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Only 10–20% of patients with CLM are eligible for tumor resection due to high tumor burden and clinical complications [2]. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an effective treatment in patients with CLM and can achieve high local control rates [5, 6]. RFA finds widespread application for liver cancer due to its safety and low rate of major complications (1.3–7%) [6,7,8]. A randomized phase II trial study demonstrated that aggressive RFA treatment can prolong overall survival (OS) in patients with unresectable CLM [11]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
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.