open access
Results of the treatment of patients with solid tumours and liver metastases: 8 years experience of one institution
open access
Abstract
Introduction. Surgical treatment of liver metastases from solid tumours should be provided by multidisciplinary teams.
Aim. The aim of the present study is to analyse results of the combined treatment of patients with different solid tumours and liver metastases by single institution multidisciplinary team for last 8 years.
Material and methods. This is a retrospective analysis of 166 patients (84 females and 82 males), aged from 19 to 78 years (mean 58 ± 11.2), treated due to liver metastases from solid tumours in various primary localizations: except neuroendocrine tumours. In every patient, perioperative systemic therapy was evaluated in agreement with current recommendations of the Polish Union of Oncology.
Results. In the follow-up time available (median 35 months) 46% of patients died. Liver resections were performed in 107 (65%) patients, including 19 patients in whom resections were supplemented with (RF-)thermoablations of their liver metastases. This was the sole surgical treatment in the 59 (36%) patients. Perioperative mortality was 1.2%. Grade II complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were found in 33 (19.8%) patients, whereas grade III and IV complications were treated in 8 (4.8%) patients. One-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were respectively 78%, 41%, and 37%. Five-year overall survival in patients with colorectal carcinoma after liver resection of metachronous metastases was 48%. We conclude that combined treatment of patients with liver metastases from non-endocrine solid tumours by the multidisciplinary team is safe and effective. A nearly 50% 5-year survival is achievable in a carefully selected group of patients. We also conclude that hepatic resection is an optimal method of surgical treatment of liver metastases.
Abstract
Introduction. Surgical treatment of liver metastases from solid tumours should be provided by multidisciplinary teams.
Aim. The aim of the present study is to analyse results of the combined treatment of patients with different solid tumours and liver metastases by single institution multidisciplinary team for last 8 years.
Material and methods. This is a retrospective analysis of 166 patients (84 females and 82 males), aged from 19 to 78 years (mean 58 ± 11.2), treated due to liver metastases from solid tumours in various primary localizations: except neuroendocrine tumours. In every patient, perioperative systemic therapy was evaluated in agreement with current recommendations of the Polish Union of Oncology.
Results. In the follow-up time available (median 35 months) 46% of patients died. Liver resections were performed in 107 (65%) patients, including 19 patients in whom resections were supplemented with (RF-)thermoablations of their liver metastases. This was the sole surgical treatment in the 59 (36%) patients. Perioperative mortality was 1.2%. Grade II complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were found in 33 (19.8%) patients, whereas grade III and IV complications were treated in 8 (4.8%) patients. One-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were respectively 78%, 41%, and 37%. Five-year overall survival in patients with colorectal carcinoma after liver resection of metachronous metastases was 48%. We conclude that combined treatment of patients with liver metastases from non-endocrine solid tumours by the multidisciplinary team is safe and effective. A nearly 50% 5-year survival is achievable in a carefully selected group of patients. We also conclude that hepatic resection is an optimal method of surgical treatment of liver metastases.
About this articleTitle
Results of the treatment of patients with solid tumours and liver metastases: 8 years experience of one institution
Journal
Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology
Issue
Article type
Research paper (original)
Pages
129-134
Published online
2014-04-09
Page views
1256
Article views/downloads
4766
DOI
10.5603/NJO.2014.0019
Bibliographic record
Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology 2014;64(2):129-134.
Authors
Jerzy Mielko
Andrzej Kurylcio
Marek Sokoluk
Witold Budny
Bogumiła Ciseł
Ewelina Guz
Angelika Gawlik
Magdalena Skórzewska
Kinga Franciszkiewicz-Pietrzak
Robert Sitarz
Monika Lewicka
Konrad Krzyżanowski
Witold Krupski
Wojciech P. Polkowski