Dataset Information

Liver Transplantation for Non-Resectable Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Backgrounds

Colorectal liver metastases were historically considered a contraindication to liver transplantation, but dismal outcomes for those with metastatic colorectal cancer and advancements in liver transplantation (LT) have led to a renewed interest in the topic. We aim to compare the current evidence for liver transplantation for non-resectable colorectal liver metastases (NRCLM) with the current standard treatment of palliative chemotherapy.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of proportions was conducted following screening of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and CENTRAL for studies reporting liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastases. Post-operative outcomes measured included one-, three- and five-year survival, overall survival, disease-free survival and complication rate.

Results

Three non-randomised studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting a total of 48 patients receiving LT for NRCLM. Survival at one-, three- and five-years was 83.3-100%, 58.3-80% and 50-80%, respectively, with no significant difference detected (p = 0.22, p = 0.48, p = 0.26). Disease-free survival was 35-56% with the most common site of recurrence being lung. Thirteen out of fourteen deaths were due to disease recurrence.

Conclusion

Although current evidence suggests a survival benefit conferred by LT in NRCLM compared to palliative chemotherapy, the ethical implications of organ availability and allocation demand rigorous justification. Concomitant improvements in the management of patients following liver resection and of palliative chemotherapy regimens is paramount.

SUBMITTER: Varley R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8476371 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIrreversible electroporation (IRE) is a non-thermal form of ablation based on the delivery of pulsed electrical fields. It has been used to treat liver lesions, particularly those in proximity to major hepatic vasculature. The role of this technique in the portfolio of treatments for colorectal hepatic metastases has not been clearly defined. This study undertakes a systematic review of IRE for treatment of colorectal hepatic metastases.MethodsThe study protocol was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews (CRD42022332866) and reports in compliance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). The Ovid MEDLINE®, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were queried in April 2022. The search terms 'irreversible electroporation', 'colon cancer', 'rectum cancer' and 'liver metastases' were used in combinations. Studies were included if they provided information on the use of IRE for patients with colorectal hepatic metastases and reported procedure and disease-specific outcomes. The searches returned 647 unique articles and the exclusions left a total of eight articles. These were assessed for bias using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS criteria) and reported using the synthesis without meta-analysis guideline (SWiM).ResultsOne hundred eighty patients underwent treatment for liver metastases from colorectal cancer. The median transverse diameter of tumours treated by IRE was <3 cm. Ninety-four (52%) tumours were adjacent to major hepatic inflow/outflow structures or the vena cava. IRE was undertaken under general anaesthesia with cardiac cycle synchronisation and with the use of either CT or ultrasound for lesion localisation. Probe spacing was less than 3.2 cm for all ablations. There were two (1.1%) procedure-related deaths in 180 patients. There was one (0.5%) post-operative haemorrhage requiring laparotomy, one (0.5%) bile leak, five (2.8%) post-procedure biliary strictures and a zero incidence of post-IRE liver failure.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that IRE for colorectal liver metastases can be accomplished with low procedure-related morbidity and mortality. Further prospective study is required to assess the role of IRE in the portfolio of treatments for patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficiency of the conversion therapy: chemotherapy plus anti-epidermal growth factor Receptor (EGFR) or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) with different rat sarcoma (RAS) status in patients with potentially resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and the association between RAS mutation and clinical outcome in CRLM patients treated with anti-EGFR or anti-VEGFR MoAbs was investigated. Searches were performed for data recorded between January 2005 and August 2015 in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE. Objective response rates (ORR), conversion resection rates (CRR), R0 resection rates (R0R) and rate ratios (RR) were used to assess the strength of the association between different RAS status, MoAbs and conversion efficiency.ResultsIn the conversion therapy, ORR and RR were associated with patients with wild type RAS and different MoAbs. Patients treated with MoAbs: anti-VEGFR or anti-EGFR drugs, resulted in higher ORR, (RR=1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-1.84, P < 0.05). Furthermore, anti-EGFR regimens displayed higher ORR compared with anti-VEGFR regimens in CRLM patients, (RR=1.15, 95%CI: 1.04-1.26, P < 0.05). However, CRLM patients with mutant type RAS did not benefit from anti-EGFR therapy, (RR=0.91, 95%CI: 0.76-1.08, P<0.05) and wild type RAS patients displayed higher ORR with anti-EGFR therapy, (RR=1.56, 95%CI: 1.16-2.01, P <0.05). In addition, the patients achieved higher resection rates (RR=1.67, 95%CI: 1.00-2.81, P ≤ 0.05) and R0 resection (RR=1.85, 95%CI: 1.04-3.27, P < 0.05).ConclusionWe noted that the addition of MoAbs (anti-EGFR or anti-VEGFR) to standard chemotherapy could improve conversion efficiency for patients with potentially resectable CRLM patients, and anti-EGFR therapies maybe more effective than anti-VEGFR therapies. RAS status is a potential predictive marker of the clinical benefit resulting from treatment with anti-EGFR MoAbs therapy in CRLM patients and anti-EGFR MoAbs therapy could displayed greater efficiency only in patients with wild type RAS.