Current problems in cancer · 2024
Long-term clinical outcomes after the second metastasectomy in patients with resected metastatic colorectal cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Choi Songji, Kang Minsu, Kim Ji-Won, Kim Jin Won, Jeon Jae Hyun, Oh Heung-Kwon, Lee Hae Won, Cho Jai Young, Kim Duck-Woo, Cho Sukki, Kim Jee Hyun, Kim Kwhanmien, Kang Sung-Bum, Jheon Sanghoon, Lee Keun-Wook
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Primary tumor resection and metastasectomy are curative for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there is still a paucity of data regarding the clinical outcomes and risk factors after disease recurrence and second metastasectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent the second metastasectomy. In addition, risk factors for the outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 94 patients (39 females and 55 males) received a second metastasectomy after the recurrence. Recurrent sites included the lung (47 patients), liver (36 patients), both lung and liver (four patients), and non-lung/non-liver (seven patients). Among them, 89 (94.7 %) patients achieved R0 resection, while three (3.2 %) and two (2.1 %) patients achieved R1 and R2 resections, respectively. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 42.8±5.3 % and 67.2±4.9 %, respectively. Multivariable analysis for DFS identified that primary rectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.45, P=0.033) and disease-free interval after the first metastasectomy of ≥12 months (HR 0.39, P=0.002) were good predictive factors; in contrast, non-lung/non-liver metastasis (HR 3.32, P=0.020) was a poor predictive factor. Multivariable analysis for OS showed that age ≥70 years (HR 3.27, P=0.011), non-lung/non-liver metastasis (HR 4.04, P=0.024), and lesion number ≥2 (HR 2.25, P=0.023) were poor prognostic factors.
CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent a second metastasectomy had a long-term disease-free state and good OS. Our data suggest that a second metastasectomy should be considered if a patient has a limited number of metastases confined to the liver and/or lung and long DFS after the first metastasectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent the second metastasectomy. In addition, risk factors for the outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 94 patients (39 females and 55 males) received a second metastasectomy after the recurrence. Recurrent sites included the lung (47 patients), liver (36 patients), both lung and liver (four patients), and non-lung/non-liver (seven patients). Among them, 89 (94.7 %) patients achieved R0 resection, while three (3.2 %) and two (2.1 %) patients achieved R1 and R2 resections, respectively. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 42.8±5.3 % and 67.2±4.9 %, respectively. Multivariable analysis for DFS identified that primary rectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.45, P=0.033) and disease-free interval after the first metastasectomy of ≥12 months (HR 0.39, P=0.002) were good predictive factors; in contrast, non-lung/non-liver metastasis (HR 3.32, P=0.020) was a poor predictive factor. Multivariable analysis for OS showed that age ≥70 years (HR 3.27, P=0.011), non-lung/non-liver metastasis (HR 4.04, P=0.024), and lesion number ≥2 (HR 2.25, P=0.023) were poor prognostic factors.
CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent a second metastasectomy had a long-term disease-free state and good OS. Our data suggest that a second metastasectomy should be considered if a patient has a limited number of metastases confined to the liver and/or lung and long DFS after the first metastasectomy.