Next Article in Journal
The Role of Plastic Reconstructive Surgery in Surgical Therapy of Soft Tissue Sarcomas
Next Article in Special Issue
Perioperative Systemic Chemotherapy for Colorectal Liver Metastasis: Recent Updates
Previous Article in Journal
First Line Systemic Treatment for MALT Lymphoma—Do We Still Need Chemotherapy? Real World Data from the Medical University Vienna
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/cancers12123535
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Perioperative Chemotherapy for Liver Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer

by
Gloria Chan
and
Cheng E. Chee
*
Department of Haematology-Oncology, National University Hospital Singapore, National University Cancer Institute, Singapore 119228, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2020, 12(12), 3535; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12123535
Submission received: 4 October 2020 / Revised: 28 October 2020 / Accepted: 12 November 2020 / Published: 26 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Perioperative Chemotherapy for Liver Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Survival outcomes for resectable metastatic colorectal cancer have improved over the past decade. This is due in part to improvements made in imaging technology, locoregional treatment, and systemic treatment. The focus of this review is to summarize and analyze the existing information available on systemic therapy in the setting of colorectal cancer with liver metastases. It is written with structured viewpoints including patient selection, sequencing of treatment, choice of systemic therapy for upfront resectable disease and conversion chemotherapy for unresectable colorectal cancer. Post-treatment surveillance and future research directions are also discussed. This review will help treating physicians make decisions for the treatment of liver metastases of colorectal cancer.

Abstract

The liver is the dominant site of metastasis for patients with colorectal cancer. For those with isolated liver metastases, surgical resection with systemic therapy has led to long-term remission in as high as 80% of patients in well-selected cohorts. This review will focus on how systemic therapy should be integrated with resection of liver metastases; in particular, the use of clinical risk scores based on clinicopathological features that help with patient selection, various approaches to the treatment of micro-metastatic disease (peri-operative versus post-operative chemotherapy), as well as conversion chemotherapy for those with initially upfront unresectable disease will be discussed.

1. Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) 2018 data, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosed (10.2%) and the second-leading cause of mortality amongst all cancers (9.2%) [1]. Over 1.8 million people worldwide were diagnosed with CRC in 2018, 15 to 25% of them would have synchronous liver metastases, and another 20% would develop liver metastases within three years, from the time of the first diagnosis [2,3,4]. The five-year overall survival (OS) in all stage IV CRC is 14.3% [5]. This is in stark contrast to what is observed for patients with resectable liver metastases, whose OS has improved remarkably over the last two decades. In fact, five-year OS from databases around the turn of the millennium was reported to be between 30 and 40% [6,7,8], compared to figures higher than 80% in trials published in 2020 [9].

2. Patient Selection

As there is a clear survival impact, surgical resection of R0 resectable liver metastases is the treatment of choice when possible. The criteria to select patients for potentially curative resection is constantly being redefined, and this varies between institutions but is largely dependent on the experience of the multi-disciplinary medical team. Considerations that need to be accounted for include patient factors, disease factors, and anatomic factors.
There are several well-established clinical risk scores that are used to stratify patients based on their likelihood of recurrence (Table 1) [7,10,11,12]. To spare patients from a futile operation, those with high-risk features should be considered for initial chemotherapy to assess tumor biology before surgery.
Even though these scores have been widely used to stratify patients based on their likelihood of recurrence, they were developed based on patients who underwent surgery before 2000, when prognostic information of tumor mutations were not known. Multiple groups have shown that somatic mutations in RAS are associated with inferior progression-free and overall survival in colorectal cancer [13,14]. Retrospective data based on 1460 patients who underwent colorectal liver metastasis resection and multigene testing revealed that RAS mutation status alone is not sufficient for predicting prognosis after resection [15]. These patients should not be uniformly excluded from surgery as long as a R0 resection can be achieved, as it remains the only option for cure [16,17,18,19]. Tumors with BRAF V600E mutations are associated with aggressive tumor biology and are less likely to be candidates for metastatectomy due to widespread disease at the time of presentation. Median OS even after resection of liver metastases for this group of patients is between 22 to 28 months [20,21]. Therefore, resection of liver metastases in this group of patients should only be considered if there has been a durable response to systemic therapy and the liver was the only site of disease.
More recently validated risk scores have included factors like KRAS mutation status and presence of extrahepatic disease, as in the Genetic and Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score [22], and KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation status and presence of bi-lobar liver metastasis in the comprehensive evaluation of relapse risk (CERR) score, both of which have outperformed the initial Fong Criteria [23]. Anatomic criteria when selecting candidates for resection of colorectal liver metastases have broaden so much over the years that the modern consensus on what defines resectable liver metastases is tumors that can be resected completely while leaving adequate liver remnant [24]. All in all, no set of guidelines can replace case-by-case evaluation by a multi-disciplinary team, taking into consideration the complex web of interactions between “resectability”, tumor biology, and patient factors; this remains the standard of care.

3. Timing of Systemic and Surgical Therapy

The optimal timing and sequencing of chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy (for patients with a rectal primary), and surgery should be individualized for each patient. This decision is undertaken by a multi-disciplinary tumor board and should account for the following: synchronous versus metachronous liver metastases, presence of a symptomatic primary tumor, resectability of liver metastasis, and response to systemic therapy. There is no evidence that adding a biological agent to a cytotoxic doublet improves the outcome in the presence of resectable metastases compared with a cytotoxic doublet alone in combination with resection of the metastases. In general, patients with a symptomatic primary tumor (e.g., bleeding, obstruction, perforation) should have treatment of the primary tumor prioritized. If liver metastases are upfront resectable, concurrent resection of liver metastases can be undertaken if the peri-operative risks are acceptable. If not, pre-operative chemotherapy may be given, followed by reassessment with close-interval imaging. It is important to proceed to liver metastatectomy once resection is deemed feasible and not to continue with prolonged chemotherapy to avoid veno-occlusive disease or chemotherapy-associated steatohepatitis. Those with upfront resectable metachronous liver metastases (i.e., metastatic recurrence in the liver following resection of the primary tumor) and low clinical risk of recurrence can be considered for upfront resection. Following resection, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy or surveillance alone will need to be discussed with the patient. Figure 1 summarizes the approach to colorectal liver metastases.

3.1. Peri-Operative Chemotherapy for Upfront Resectable Disease

In those with upfront resectable disease, studies have looked at delivering systemic chemotherapy either for six months post-operatively or in a sandwich fashion, i.e., three months before and three months after resection of hepatic metastases. In those with resectable disease, the goal of delivering chemotherapy pre-operatively is to “test tumor biology”, that is, to allow an observational period to determine whether new lesions will appear soon after systemic treatment, rendering surgery futile. Conversely, we know that the pathologic response to pre-operative chemotherapy is predictive of prognosis after resection of colorectal liver metastases; the five-year OS in those attaining pathological complete response is 76%, compared to 45% in those who do not [25].
To date (Table 2), there are two Phase III clinical trials that randomized patients in the sandwich regimen—the EORTC 40983 and the New EPOC study. In the first study, 364 patients with CRC and resectable liver metastases (up to four) were randomized to surgery alone or six cycles of FOLFOX4 chemotherapy (Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin), administered before and after surgery [26]. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) did not increase significantly with the addition of chemotherapy. However, the improvement of 8% in all eligible patients and 9% in patients who had resection was significant, even though not pre-specified. Pre-operative chemotherapy achieved a response rate of 43%, 7% of the patients had progressive disease, and eight subjects (5%) were inoperable due to disease progression. Tumor progression on chemotherapy predicts poor outcomes after resection [27], and pre-operative chemotherapy helps to select patients who would otherwise go through unnecessary surgery. Opponents of pre-operative chemotherapy would argue that it delays otherwise curative surgery and increases the risk of post-operative complications [28]. Although surgery is deemed as curative in this setting, it has been shown that in those patients who achieve complete radiological response (3%) with chemotherapy, viable tumors are still observed in the resected liver specimen in more than 80% of these cases, which could have precluded them from resection in the first place [29]. Furthermore, there was no observed OS difference for patients treated with peri-operative FOLFOX4 during long-term follow-up. The five-year OS was 51.2% for patients in the chemotherapy arm versus 47.8% for the surgery-only group [30].
Although the addition of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies such as cetuximab and panitumumab have shown to produce a survival benefit for patients with RAS/RAF wild-type tumors in the palliative setting [31,32], this is not the case for patients with operable liver metastases. The New EPOC trial randomized patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors with resectable or borderline resectable liver metastases to receive chemotherapy (oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil, oxaliplatin plus capecitabine, or irinotecan plus fluorouracil) with or without cetuximab before and after resection of liver metastases. Despite a higher number of patients showing response to treatment with cetuximab, the trial was terminated due to the detrimental effect on PFS that was observed during interim analysis, which eventually led to a shortening of OS of 26 months in the group receiving cetuximab [33,34]. The effects of anti-EGFR therapy in the setting of resectable metastases, such as tumor sidedness, RAF mutation, HER2 amplification, and microsatellite instability status, which were untested at the time of trial enrolment as the knowledge of resistance to anti-EGFR antibodies, post-date the design of this trial [35]. However, mutation status alone would not explain the result of this trial, as post-hoc analysis showed no significant difference in the distribution of extended RAS and RAF mutations in both groups. Interestingly, cetuximab was more detrimental in subgroups that were associated with good prognostic features such as well- or moderately differentiated primary tumors, fewer number of liver metastases, lack of N2 disease and metachronous disease [33]. Post-recurrence survival was much worse in the group that received cetuximab, possibly suggesting an aggressive disease phenotype development at recurrence or imbalances in post-recurrence treatment approaches [36]. Only 10% of patients who received peri-operative cetuximab received it again in the recurrent setting, compared to 30% in the chemotherapy-only arm. The findings of the New EPOC trial echo the results of N0147 and PETACC-8 in the adjuvant setting that saw no benefit with the addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with stage III disease [37,38]. Overall, the consistent trend of lack of efficacy (and perhaps even the presence of a detrimental effect) of anti-EGFR therapy in patients with micro-metastatic disease makes this treatment unsuitable for use in the curative setting.

3.2. Adjuvant Chemotherapy

The use of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of micro-metastatic disease has long been accepted as the standard of care for patients with stage 3 colon cancer due to the consistent, significant disease-free and overall survival benefits [39]. However, this benefit cannot be directly extrapolated to post-operative chemotherapy after resection of liver metastases. Several trials designed to answer this question have been fraught with issues of poor recruitment, early termination, and usage of non-modern chemotherapy by today’s standards [40,41,42]. Table 3 summarizes the randomized trials for adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy after resection of liver metastases. In three studies, fluorouracil-based chemotherapy was compared to observation [40,41,43], showing a consistent improvement in PFS of 6–9% with adjuvant chemotherapy. However, this improvement did not consistently translate to a significant improvement in OS at longer term follow-up. The preliminary data from JCOG0603, which was presented at the American Society of Medical Oncology (ASCO) meeting in 2020, represent the most recent results we have on chemotherapy after resection of liver metastases. The trial compared six months of post-operative mFOLFOX6 with observation alone and found a significant improvement in three-year disease-free survival (DFS) of 10.6% with chemotherapy. However, this trial was terminated early because of the futility in OS; the five-year OS was 83.0% in the control arm compared to 69.5% for patients receiving chemotherapy. Only 44% of those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy completed the six-month trial. The reasons suggested for the detrimental effect of mFOLFOX6 on OS was the restricted use of oxaliplatin for recurrent disease and the emergence of more aggressive chemotherapy-refractory tumors at relapse in those patients who received post-operative chemotherapy [9]. The results of this study also suggest that a five-year OS of 83% is possible after resection of small (<5 cm) and a limited number (≤3) of liver metastases followed by surveillance alone.

3.3. Conversion Chemotherapy for Unresectable Disease

The purported clinical benefits are seen only in R0 resection (i.e., no gross or microscopic tumor remains in the primary tumor bed); there is no role for partial palliative resection of metastases. As such, the consideration of upfront chemotherapy in the presence of initially unresectable liver metastases with the hope of downstaging to resectable disease seems to be a reasonable approach, but in reality it only occurs in 12% of cases [45]. However, for those who achieve a good response and successfully undergo curative resection treatment, the five-year DFS rate is 22% [45]. In choosing this approach, consideration must be given to the timing of chemotherapy, as prolonged administration of chemotherapy may lead to higher risk of liver toxicity and post-operative morbidity [46].
Multiple regimens for conversion chemotherapy in the presence of unresectable CRC with liver metastases have been studied, but the optimal chemotherapy regimen has not yet been established (Table 4). Broadly, the treatment should involve doublet or triplet chemotherapy with or without addition of targeted therapy. Factors considered include need for response, sidedness of primary tumor, mutation status, and previous chemotherapy-related toxicities.
Oxaliplatin-based (FOLFOX/XELOX) and irinotecan-based doublets (FOLFIRI/XELIRI) result in similar response rates, between 34% and 59% [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. A careful selection of patients for conversion chemotherapy in Phase II clinical trials showed that the approach with doublet chemotherapy results in an R0 resection rate of 24% to 40% [48,52,53]. Further intensification to a triplet regimen with FOLFOXIRI resulted in higher responses (60% to 70%) and in a 15–26% rate of R0 resection [49,55]. In deciding the duration of chemotherapy pre-operatively, one should bear in mind that the purpose of conversion chemotherapy is not to treat until maximal response but rather to provide a limited course of chemotherapy until response has occurred to enable liver resection [56]. The incremental risk of post-operative morbidity is directly related to the number of chemotherapy cycles administered before surgery [28]. Cytotoxic chemotherapy used for metastatic CRC is associated with sinusoidal dilation in the case of oxaliplatin and steatohepatitis in the case of irinotecan, which increased the odds of post-operative mortality by ten-fold [46].
Bevacizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) which has shown survival benefit in the palliative setting [57,58,59]. The addition of bevacizumab to either doublet or triplet chemotherapy has been investigated in several trials [50,60,61,62,63,64]. Results from a pooled analysis of 11 trials including 889 patients showed that a FOLFOXIRI–bevacizumab combination resulted in response rates of 69% and R0 resection in 28% of those with initially had unresectable metastases [65]. Yet, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy does not appear to significantly increase the response rates or rate of R0 resection in the NO16966 study [50]. Bevacizumab belongs to a class of anti-angiogenic agents with a peculiar toxicity profile including hypertension, proteinuria, hemorrhage, thromboembolism, gastrointestinal perforation, and impaired wound healing [66]. The half-life of bevacizumab is around 20 days, and the current data suggest that an interval of 5 to 8 weeks from the last dose of bevacizumab to surgery is likely to be safe [67,68]. However, given that bevacizumab has not shown to consistently improve response rates [50], does not provide benefit in the adjuvant setting [69,70], and has well-established side effects, it may not need to be routinely administered for the goal of conversion.
Addition of anti-EGFR agents (cetuximab or panitumumab) to doublet chemotherapy in the setting of unresectable liver metastases results in response rates of 41–70%, translating to R0 resection rates of 27–38% [31,71,72,73,74]. In the CELIM trial, cetuximab added to either FOLFIRI or FOLFOX significantly increased the rate of R0 resection (25% vs. 7%) compared to chemotherapy alone [75]. The combination of EGFR inhibitors to triplet chemotherapy has consistently shown better responses, compared to FOLFOXIRI in patients with wild-type RAS tumors [63,76]. Patients with metastatic wild-type RAS CRC were randomized to receive panitumumab plus mFOLFOXIRI vs. mFOLFOXIRI only in the VOLFI trial [76]. The arm receiving quadruplet therapy achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 86%, while those administered triplet therapy had an ORR of 54%. Among those receiving panitumumab, ORR was significantly higher in patients with left-sided tumors compared to those with right-sided tumors (90% vs. 60%). For those patients where an eventual resection was planned, more patients receiving panitumumab achieved resection (60% vs. 36%). Apart from the RAS/RAF molecular status, this trial and several others indicate that primary tumor sidedness is predictive for response to EGFR inhibitors [77,78]. In deciding between the use of anti-VEGF or an anti-EGFR, the sidedness of the primary tumor needs to be considered. In a combined analysis of six clinical trials (CRYSTAL [31], FIRE-3 [79], CALGB 80405 [80], PRIME [32], PEAK [81], and 20050181 [82]), significant improvements in PFS and OS with the addition of cetuximab or panitumumab to chemotherapy were only seen in patients with left-sided (distal to the splenic flexure), wild-type RAS primary colorectal tumors [78]. For the response rates, there was a trend towards a greater benefit from anti-EGFR therapy in those with left-sided tumors compared to those with right-sided tumors [78]. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommend that the incorporation of EGFR inhibitors in the first-line setting should be indicated only for those patients with wild-type RAS/RAF and left-sided tumors [83,84]. Contrastingly, for patients with more aggressive right-sided primary tumors, addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy may be more beneficial.

4. Surveillance

Post-treatment surveillance is indicated for patients who would be considered for a second potentially curative surgical procedure. Approximately 60% of cancers recur a year after the complete resection of colorectal liver metastases, and about one-quarter of patients who undergo surveillance after initial treatment of liver metastases can undergo curative-intent treatment again [85]. The five-year DFS and OS for those who undergo repeat hepatectomy have been reported as 22–26% and 41–73%, respectively [86,87]. NCCN recommends CEA testing and contrast-enhanced CT scans of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis every 3–6 months in the first two years after adjuvant chemotherapy and then every 6–12 months for a total five years [83].

5. Future Directions

This year, the Federal Drug Agency (FDA) approved anti-PD1 pembrolizumab for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic CRC with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) CRC based on the findings of the KEYNOTE-177 study [88]. Compared to chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab or cetuximab), first-line pembrolizumab resulted in doubling of PFS (16 vs. 8 months) and improved ORR (44% vs. 33%) [89]. In the updated analysis of CheckMate 142, the combination of nivolumab and low-dose ipilimumab achieved an ORR of 64%, a complete response rate of 9%, and a disease control rate of 84% [90]. Although the dMMR status is uncommon (<5% of metastatic CRC patients), the high and durable response seen with checkpoint inhibitors in this group of patients raises the question of liver metastatectomy in cases which are converted to resectable disease. Interestingly, a small retrospective study observed pathologic complete response in the majority of resected specimens which were treated with checkpoint inhibitors, despite presence of residual tumors on pre-operative imaging [91]. This suggests that residual radiographic tumors may not require resection following response to anti-PD1-based therapy. Hence, the role of liver metastatectomy in dMMR patients remains uncertain and needs to be prospectively validated.
The lack of OS benefit with modern post-operative chemotherapy after liver resection indicates that patient selection needs improvement. One emerging area is the potential use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), as it defines minimal residual disease, reflecting the existence of micro-metastases after surgical resection [92]. Following hepatectomy for liver metastases in CRC, detection of ctDNA was associated with a high risk of recurrence [93]. In future post-operative studies, ctDNA could be used to select patients with a high risk of recurrence and be considered for the escalation of chemotherapy regimens. ctDNA has also been suggested to help select patients for resection of colorectal liver metastases, in that the absence of ctDNA after four weeks of systemic chemotherapy correlated with an 85% R0/R1 resection rate of liver metastases [94].

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, the management of CRC liver metastasis requires risk stratification and a multi-disciplinary input. Those patients with upfront resectable disease and low clinical risk should undergo resection followed by a risk–benefit discussion regarding adjuvant chemotherapy post-operatively or surveillance. In patients who fulfill the criteria of the EORTC 40983 study, peri-operative chemotherapy may be considered. The peri-operative chemotherapy approach may also be considered for resectable but high-risk cases to test tumor biology in order to avoid futile surgery. For unresectable liver metastases, a good response to systemic therapy may provide an opportunity for liver metastatectomy. It is important to note that the goal of conversion chemotherapy is surgical resection rather than maximal response; hence, regular imaging at close intervals is required to determine the optimal time for resection in order to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced liver injury. The choice of treatment regimen for conversion chemotherapy depends on tumor burden, RAS/RAF mutation status, primary tumor sidedness, exposure to previous adjuvant chemotherapy, and pre-existing toxicities. Regardless of the regimen chosen prior to resection, a total of six months of peri-operative systemic therapy is recommended. Chemotherapy based on 5FU with or without oxaliplatin is recommended in the post-operative setting, as there is no proven benefit for irinotecan, bevacizumab, or EGFR inhibitors when there is no evaluable disease. More reliable biomarkers are required in this setting to better select patients for treatment in order to optimize the current standards of care.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: G.C. and C.E.C.; methodology: G.C. and C.E.C.; formal analysis: G.C. and C.E.C.; resources: G.C. and C.E.C.; data curation: G.C. and C.E.C.; writing–original draft preparation: G.C.; writing–review and editing: C.E.C.; visualization: G.C. and C.E.C.; supervision: C.E.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

References

  1. WHO. Colorectal Cancer GLOBOCAN 2018 Database Issued by World Health Organization (WHO). Available online: http://gco.iarc.fr/today (accessed on 1 October 2020).
  2. Van Der Geest, L.; Lam-Boer, J.; Koopman, M.; Verhoef, C.; Elferink, M.A.G.; De Wilt, J.H.W. Nationwide trends in incidence, treatment and survival of colorectal cancer patients with synchronous metastases. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 2015, 32, 457–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hackl, C.; Neumann, P.; Gerken, M.; Loss, M.; Klinkhammer-Schalke, M.; Schlitt, H.J. Treatment of colorectal liver metastases in Germany: A ten-year population-based analysis of 5772 cases of primary colorectal adenocarcinoma. BMC Cancer 2014, 14, 810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Van Gestel, Y.R.; De Hingh, I.H.; Van Herk-Sukel, M.P.; Van Erning, F.N.; Beerepoot, L.V.; Wijsman, J.H.; Slooter, G.D.; Rutten, H.J.; Creemers, G.-J.M.; Lemmens, V.E. Patterns of metachronous metastases after curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. 2014, 38, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Howlader, N.; Noone, A.; Krapcho, M.; Miller, D.; Brest, A.; Yu, M.; Ruhl, J.; Tatalovich, Z.; Mariotto, A.; Lewis, D.; et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review. 2017. Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2017/ (accessed on 1 October 2020).
  6. Scheele, J.; Stang, R.; Altendorf-Hofmann, A.; Paul, M. Resection of colorectal liver metastases. World J. Surg. 1995, 19, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Fong, Y.; Fortner, J.; Sun, R.L.; Brennan, M.F.; Blumgart, L.H. Clinical Score for Predicting Recurrence After Hepatic Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Ann. Surg. 1999, 230, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Abdalla, E.K.; Vauthey, J.-N.; Ellis, L.M.; Ellis, V.; Pollock, R.; Broglio, K.R.; Hess, K.; Curley, S.A. Recurrence and Outcomes Following Hepatic Resection, Radiofrequency Ablation, and Combined Resection/Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. 2004, 239, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kanemitsu, Y.; Shimizu, Y.; Mizusawa, J.; Inaba, Y.; Hamaguchi, T.; Shida, D.; Ohue, M.; Komori, K.; Shiomi, A.; Shiozawa, M.; et al. A randomized phase II/III trial comparing hepatectomy followed by mFOLFOX6 with hepatectomy alone for liver metastasis from colorectal cancer: JCOG0603 study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 4005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nordlinger, B.; Guiguet, M.; Vaillant, J.C.; Balladur, P.; Boudjema, K.; Bachellier, P.; Jaeck, D. Surgical resection of colorectal carcinoma metastases to the liver. A prognostic scoring system to improve case selection, based on 1568 patients. Association Française de Chirurgie. Cancer 1996, 77, 1254–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nagashima, I.; Takada, T.; Adachi, M.; Nagawa, H.; Muto, T.; Okinaga, K. Proposal of criteria to select candidates with colorectal liver metastases for hepatic resection: Comparison of our scoring system to the positive number of risk factors. World J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 12, 6305–6309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Konopke, R.; Kersting, S.; Distler, M.; Dietrich, J.; Gastmeier, J.; Heller, A.R.; Kulisch, E.; Saeger, H.-D. Prognostic factors and evaluation of a clinical score for predicting survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases. Liver Int. 2009, 29, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Modest, D.P.; Ricard, I.; Heinemann, V.; Hegewisch-Becker, S.; Schmiegel, W.; Porschen, R.; Stintzing, S.; Graeven, U.; Arnold, D.; Von Weikersthal, L.F.; et al. Outcome according to KRAS-, NRAS- and BRAF-mutation as well as KRAS mutation variants: Pooled analysis of five randomized trials in metastatic colorectal cancer by the AIO colorectal cancer study group. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 1746–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Taieb, J.; Zaanan, A.; Le Malicot, K.; Julié, C.; Blons, H.; Mineur, L.; Bennouna, J.; Tabernero, J.; Mini, E.; Folprecht, G.; et al. Prognostic Effect ofBRAFandKRASMutations in Patients with Stage III Colon Cancer Treated with Leucovorin, Fluorouracil, and Oxaliplatin with or Without Cetuximab. JAMA Oncol. 2016, 2, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Kawaguchi, Y.; Kopetz, S.; Newhook, T.E.; De Bellis, M.; Chun, Y.S.; Tzeng, C.-W.D.; Aloia, T.A.; Vauthey, J.-N. Mutation Status of RAS, TP53, and SMAD4 is Superior to Mutation Status of RAS Alone for Predicting Prognosis after Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019, 25, 5843–5851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Margonis, G.A.; Spolverato, G.; Kim, Y.; Karagkounis, G.; Choti, M.A.; Pawlik, T.M. Effect of KRAS Mutation on Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Hepatic Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 4158–4165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Yokota, T.; Ura, T.; Shibata, N.; Takahari, D.; Shitara, K.; Nomura, M.; Kondo, C.; Mizota, A.; Utsunomiya, S.; Muro, K.; et al. BRAF mutation is a powerful prognostic factor in advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2011, 104, 856–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Yaeger, R.; Cercek, A.; Chou, J.F.; Sylvester, B.E.; Kemeny, N.E.; Hechtman, J.F.; Ladanyi, M.; Rosen, N.; Weiser, M.R.; Capanu, M.; et al. BRAF mutation predicts for poor outcomes after metastasectomy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer 2014, 120, 2316–2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Johnson, B.; Jin, Z.; Truty, M.J.; Smoot, R.L.; Nagorney, D.M.; Kendrick, M.L.; Kipp, B.R.; Grothey, A. Impact of Metastasectomy in the Multimodality Approach for BRAF V600E Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Mayo Clinic Experience. Oncology 2017, 23, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Schirripa, M.; Bergamo, F.; Cremolini, C.; Casagrande, M.; Lonardi, S.; Aprile, G.; Yang, D.; Marmorino, F.; Pasquini, G.; Sensi, E.; et al. BRAF and RAS mutations as prognostic factors in metastatic colorectal cancer patients undergoing liver resection. Br. J. Cancer 2015, 112, 1921–1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Margonis, G.A.; Buettner, S.; Andreatos, N.; Kim, Y.; Wagner, D.; Sasaki, K.; Beer, A.; Schwarz, C.; Løes, I.M.; Smolle, M.; et al. Association of BRAF Mutations with Survival and Recurrence in Surgically Treated Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Liver Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2018, 153, e180996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Margonis, G.A.; Sasaki, K.; Gholami, S.; Kim, Y.; Andreatos, N.; Rezaee, N.; Deshwar, A.; Buettner, S.; Allen, P.J.; Kingham, T.P.; et al. Genetic and Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score for patients with colorectal liver metastases. Br. J. Surg. 2018, 105, 1210–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, Y.; Chang, W.; Ren, L.; Chen, J.; Tang, W.; Liu, T.; Jian, M.; Liu, Y.; Wei, Y.; Xu, J. Comprehensive Evaluation of Relapse Risk (CERR) Score for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Development and Validation. Oncology 2020, 25, e1031–e1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Khatri, V.P.; Petrelli, N.J.; Belghiti, J. Extending the Frontiers of Surgical Therapy for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases: Is There a Limit? J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 8490–8499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Blazer, D.G.; Kishi, Y.; Maru, D.M.; Kopetz, E.S.; Chun, Y.S.; Overman, M.J.; Fogelman, D.R.; Eng, C.; Chang, D.Z.; Wang, H.; et al. Pathologic Response to Preoperative Chemotherapy: A New Outcome End Point After Resection of Hepatic Colorectal Metastases. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 5344–5351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Nordlinger, B.; Sorbye, H.; Glimelius, B.; Poston, G.J.; Schlag, P.M.; Rougier, P.; O Bechstein, W.; Primrose, J.N.; Walpole, E.T.; Finch-Jones, M.; et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC Intergroup trial 40983): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008, 371, 1007–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Adam, R.; Pascal, G.; Castaing, D.; Azoulay, D.; Delvart, V.; Paule, B.; Levi, F.; Bismuth, H. Tumor Progression While on Chemotherapy. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 1052–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Karoui, M.; Penna, C.; Amin-Hashem, M.; Mitry, E.; Benoist, S.; Franc, B.; Rougier, P.; Nordlinger, B. Influence of Preoperative Chemotherapy on the Risk of Major Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. 2006, 243, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Benoist, S.; Brouquet, A.; Penna, C.; Julié, C.; El Hajjam, M.; Chagnon, S.; Mitry, E.; Rougier, P.; Nordlinger, B. Complete Response of Colorectal Liver Metastases After Chemotherapy: Does It Mean Cure? J. Clin. Oncol. 2006, 24, 3939–3945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nordlinger, B.; Sorbye, H.; Glimelius, B.; Poston, G.J.; Schlag, P.M.; Rougier, P.; O Bechstein, W.; Primrose, J.N.; Walpole, E.T.; Finch-Jones, M.; et al. Perioperative FOLFOX4 chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC 40983): Long-term results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013, 14, 1208–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Van Cutsem, E.; Köhne, C.-H.; Hitre, E.; Zaluski, J.; Chien, C.-R.C.; Makhson, A.; D’Haens, G.; Pintér, T.; Lim, R.; Bodoky, G.; et al. Cetuximab and Chemotherapy as Initial Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360, 1408–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Douillard, J.Y.; Siena, S.; Cassidy, J.; Tabernero, J.; Burkes, R.; Barugel, M.; Humblet, Y.; Bodoky, G.; Cunningham, D.; Jassem, J.; et al. Final results from PRIME: Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2014, 25, 1346–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Primrose, J.; Falk, S.; Finch-Jones, M.; Valle, J.; O’Reilly, D.; Siriwardena, A.; Hornbuckle, J.; Peterson, M.; Rees, M.; Iveson, T.; et al. Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis: The New EPOC randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 601–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. A Bridgewater, J.; A Pugh, S.; Maishman, T.; Eminton, Z.; Mellor, J.; Whitehead, A.; Stanton, L.; Radford, M.; Corkhill, A.; O Griffiths, G.; et al. Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis (New EPOC): Long-term results of a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bray, S.M.; Lee, J.; Kim, S.T.; Hur, J.Y.; Ebert, P.J.; Calley, J.N.; Wulur, I.H.; Gopalappa, T.; Wong, S.-S.; Qian, H.-R.; et al. Genomic characterization of intrinsic and acquired resistance to cetuximab in colorectal cancer patients. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 15365-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Gholami, S.; Grothey, A. EGFR antibodies in resectable metastatic colorectal liver metastasis: More harm than benefit? Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 324–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sargent, D.J. Effect of Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin with or Without Cetuximab on Survival Among Patients with Resected Stage III Colon Cancer. JAMA 2012, 307, 1383–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Taieb, J.J.; Tabernero, J.; E Mini, E.; Subtil, F.F.; Folprecht, G.G.; Van Laethem, J.-L.; Thaler, J.J.; Bridgewater, J.J.; Petersen, L.N.L.; Blons, H.H.; et al. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without cetuximab in patients with resected stage III colon cancer (PETACC-8): An open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 862–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chan, G.H.J.; Chee, C.E. Making sense of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2019, 10, 1183–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Portier, G.; Elias, D.; Bouche, O.; Rougier, P.; Bosset, J.-F.; Saric, J.; Belghiti, J.; Piedbois, P.; Guimbaud, R.; Nordlinger, B.; et al. Multicenter Randomized Trial of Adjuvant Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Compared with Surgery Alone After Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases: FFCD ACHBTH AURC 9002 Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006, 24, 4976–4982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mitry, E.; Fields, A.L.; Bleiberg, H.; Labianca, R.; Portier, G.; Tu, D.; Nitti, D.; Torri, V.; Elias, D.; O’Callaghan, C.; et al. Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Potentially Curative Resection of Metastases from Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 4906–4911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ychou, M.; Raoul, J.-L.; Douillard, J.-Y.; Gourgou-Bourgade, S.; Bugat, R.; Mineur, L.; Viret, F.; Becouarn, Y.; Bouché, O.; Gamelin, E.; et al. A phase III randomised trial of LV5FU2 + irinotecan versus LV5FU2 alone in adjuvant high-risk colon cancer (FNCLCC Accord02/FFCD9802). Ann. Oncol. 2009, 20, 674–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kobayashi, A.; Hasegawa, K.; Saiura, A.; Takayama, T.; Miyagawa, S.; Yamamoto, J.; Bandai, Y.; Teruya, M.; Yoshimi, F.; Kawasaki, S.; et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating efficacy of adjuvant oral uracil-tegafur (UFT) with leucovorin (LV) after resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases: The UFT/LV study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 3584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ychou, M.; Hohenberger, W.; Thezenas, S.; Navarro, M.; Maurel, J.; Bokemeyer, C.; Shacham-Shmueli, E.; Rivera, F.; Choi, C.K.-K.; Santoro, A. A randomized phase III study comparing adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid with FOLFIRI in patients following complete resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2009, 20, 1964–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Adam, R.; Delvart, V.; Pascal, G.; Valeanu, A.; Castaing, D.; Azoulay, D.; Giacchetti, S.; Paule, B.; Kunstlinger, F.; Ghémard, O.; et al. Rescue Surgery for Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases Downstaged by Chemotherapy. Trans. Meet. Am. Surg. Assoc. 2004, 240, 242–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Vauthey, J.-N.; Pawlik, T.M.; Ribero, D.; Wu, T.-T.; Zorzi, D.; Hoff, P.M.; Xiong, H.Q.; Eng, C.; Lauwers, G.Y.; Mino-Kenudson, M.; et al. Chemotherapy Regimen Predicts Steatohepatitis and an Increase in 90-Day Mortality After Surgery for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006, 24, 2065–2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Delaunoit, T.; Alberts, S.R.; Sargent, D.J.; Green, E.; Goldberg, R.M.; Krook, J.; Fuchs, C.; Ramanathan, R.K.; Williamson, S.K.; Morton, R.F.; et al. Chemotherapy permits resection of metastatic colorectal cancer: Experience from Intergroup N9741. Ann. Oncol. 2005, 16, 425–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Alberts, S.R.; Horvath, W.L.; Sternfeld, W.C.; Goldberg, R.M.; Mahoney, M.R.; Dakhil, S.R.; Levitt, R.; Rowland, K.; Nair, S.; Sargent, D.J.; et al. Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin for Patients with Unresectable Liver-Only Metastases from Colorectal Cancer: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group Phase II Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 9243–9249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Falcone, A.; Ricci, S.; Brunetti, I.; Pfanner, E.; Allegrini, G.; Barbara, C.; Crinò, L.; Benedetti, G.; Evangelista, W.; Fanchini, L.; et al. Phase III Trial of Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) Compared with Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan (FOLFIRI) As First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 1670–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Saltz, L.B.; Clarke, S.; Díaz-Rubio, E.; Scheithauer, W.; Figer, A.; Wong, R.; Koski, S.; Lichinitser, M.; Yang, T.-S.; Rivera, F.; et al. Bevacizumab in Combination with Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 2013–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Cremolini, C.; Casagrande, M.; Loupakis, F.; Aprile, G.; Bergamo, F.; Masi, G.; Moreto, R.R.; Pietrantonio, F.; Marmorino, F.; Zucchelli, G.; et al. Efficacy of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer: A pooled analysis of clinical studies by Gruppo Oncologico del Nord Ovest. Eur. J. Cancer 2017, 73, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Skof, E.; Rebersek, M.; Hlebanja, Z.; Ocvirk, J. Capecitabine plus Irinotecan (XELIRI regimen) compared to 5-FU/LV plus Irinotecan (FOLFIRI regimen) as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with unresectable liver-only metastases of metastatic colorectal cancer: A randomised prospective phase II trial. BMC Cancer 2009, 9, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Pozzo, C.; Basso, M.; Cassano, A.; Quirino, M.; Schinzari, G.; Trigila, N.; Vellone, M.; Giuliante, F.; Nuzzo, G.; Barone, C. Neoadjuvant treatment of unresectable liver disease with irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid in colorectal cancer patients. Ann. Oncol. 2004, 15, 933–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Barone, C.A.; Nuzzo, G.; Cassano, A.; Basso, M.; Schinzari, G.; Giuliante, F.; D’Argento, E.G.; Trigila, N.; Astone, A.; Pozzo, C. Final analysis of colorectal cancer patients treated with irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid neoadjuvant chemotherapy for unresectable liver metastases. Br. J. Cancer 2007, 97, 1035–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Ychou, M.; Viret, F.; Kramar, A.; Desseigne, F.; Mitry, E.; Guimbaud, R.; Delpero, J.R.; Rivoire, M.; Quénet, F.; Portier, G.; et al. Tritherapy with fluorouracil/leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX): A phase II study in colorectal cancer patients with non-resectable liver metastases. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2008, 62, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Bilchik, A.J.; Poston, G.; Adam, R.; Choti, M.A. Prognostic Variables for Resection of Colorectal Cancer Hepatic Metastases: An Evolving Paradigm. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 5320–5321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hurwitz, H.; Fehrenbacher, L.; Novotny, W.; Cartwright, T.; Hainsworth, J.; Heim, W.; Berlin, J.; Baron, A.; Griffing, S.; Holmgren, E.; et al. Bevacizumab plus Irinotecan, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 350, 2335–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Kabbinavar, F.F.; Schulz, J.; McCleod, M.; Patel, T.; Hamm, J.T.; Hecht, J.R.; Mass, R.; Perrou, B.; Nelson, B.; Novotny, W.F. Addition of Bevacizumab to Bolus Fluorouracil and Leucovorin in First-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Randomized Phase II Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 3697–3705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cunningham, D.; Lang, I.; Marcuello, E.; Lorusso, V.; Ocvirk, J.; Shin, D.B.; Jonker, D.; Osborne, S.; Andre, N.; Waterkamp, D.; et al. Bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (AVEX): An open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013, 14, 1077–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gruenberger, T.; Bridgewater, J.; Chau, I.; Alfonso, P.G.; Rivoire, M.; Mudan, S.; Lasserre, S.; Hermann, F.; Waterkamp, D.; Adam, R. Bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX-6 or FOLFOXIRI in patients with initially unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer: The OLIVIA multinational randomised phase II trial. Ann. Oncol. 2015, 26, 702–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Loupakis, F.; Cremolini, C.; Masi, G.; Lonardi, S.; Zagonel, V.; Salvatore, L.; Cortesi, E.; Tomasello, G.; Ronzoni, M.; Spadi, R.; et al. Initial Therapy with FOLFOXIRI and Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 1609–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Masi, G.; Loupakis, F.; Salvatore, L.; Fornaro, L.; Cremolini, C.; Cupini, S.; Ciarlo, A.; Del Monte, F.; Cortesi, E.; Amoroso, D.; et al. Bevacizumab with FOLFOXIRI (irinotecan, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and folinate) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010, 11, 845–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Folprecht, G.; Mende, M.; Liersch, T.; Bechstein, W.O.; Kohne, C.-H.; Stein, A.; Kunzmann, V.; Ghadimi, M.; Neumann, U.P.; Nilsson, S.; et al. Cetuximab/irinotecan/5-FU +/-oxaliplatin or FOLFOXIRI +/- bevacizumab in patients with colorectal cancer and nonresectable liver metastases (AIO CELIM2-study). J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 4024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wong, R.; Cunningham, D.; Barbachano, Y.; Saffery, C.; Valle, J.; Hickish, T.; Mudan, S.; Brown, G.; Khan, A.; Wotherspoon, A.; et al. A multicentre study of capecitabine, oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab as perioperative treatment of patients with poor-risk colorectal liver-only metastases not selected for upfront resection. Ann. Oncol. 2011, 22, 2042–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Tomasello, G.; Petrelli, F.; Ghidini, M.; Russo, A.; Passalacqua, R.; Barni, S. FOLFOXIRI Plus Bevacizumab as Conversion Therapy for Patients with Initially Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2017, 3, e170278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ranpura, V.; Hapani, S.; Wu, S. Treatment-Related Mortality with Bevacizumab in Cancer Patients. JAMA 2011, 305, 487–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gruenberger, B.; Tamandl, D.; Schueller, J.; Scheithauer, W.; Zielinski, C.; Herbst, F.; Gruenberger, T. Bevacizumab, Capecitabine, and Oxaliplatin as Neoadjuvant Therapy for Patients with Potentially Curable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 1830–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Scappaticci, F.A.; Fehrenbacher, L.; Cartwright, T.; Hainsworth, J.D.; Heim, W.; Berlin, J.; Kabbinavar, F.; Novotny, W.; Sarkar, S.; Hurwitz, H. Surgical wound healing complications in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab. J. Surg. Oncol. 2005, 91, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Allegra, C.J.; Yothers, G.; O’Connell, M.J.; Sharif, S.; Petrelli, N.J.; Lopa, S.H.; Wolmark, N. Bevacizumab in Stage II-III Colon Cancer: 5-Year Update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-08 Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 359–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Snoeren, N.; Van Hillegersberg, R.; Schouten, S.B.; Bergman, A.M.; Van Werkhoven, E.; Dalesio, O.; Tollenaar, R.A.; Verheul, H.M.; Van Der Sijp, J.; Rinkes, I.H.B.; et al. Randomized Phase III Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of Adjuvant CAPOX with or without Bevacizumab in Patients after Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases: HEPATICA study. Neoplasia 2017, 19, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Folprecht, G.; Gruenberger, T.; O Bechstein, W.; Raab, H.-R.; Lordick, F.; Hartmann, J.T.; Lang, H.; Frilling, A.; Stoehlmacher, J.; Weitz, J.; et al. Tumour response and secondary resectability of colorectal liver metastases following neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cetuximab: The CELIM randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010, 11, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ji, J.H.; Park, S.H.; Lee, J.; Kim, T.W.; Hong, Y.S.; Kim, K.-P.; Kim, S.Y.; Baek, J.Y.; Kang, H.J.; Shin, S.J.; et al. Prospective phase II study of neoadjuvant FOLFOX6 plus cetuximab in patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver-only metastasis. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2013, 72, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bokemeyer, C.; Bondarenko, I.; Makhson, A.; Hartmann, J.T.; Aparicio, J.; De Braud, F.; Donea, S.; Ludwig, H.; Schuch, G.; Stroh, C.; et al. Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin with and Without Cetuximab in the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Douillard, J.-Y.; Siena, S.; Cassidy, J.; Tabernero, J.; Burkes, R.; Barugel, M.; Humblet, Y.; Bodoky, G.; Cunningham, D.; Jassem, J.; et al. Randomized, Phase III Trial of Panitumumab with Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) Versus FOLFOX4 Alone as First-Line Treatment in Patients with Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The PRIME Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 4697–4705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Ye, L.-C.; Liu, T.; Ren, L.; Wei, Y.; Zhu, D.-X.; Zai, S.-Y.; Ye, Q.-H.; Yu, Y.; Xu, B.; Qin, X.; et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of Cetuximab Plus Chemotherapy for Patients with KRAS Wild-Type Unresectable Colorectal Liver-Limited Metastases. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 1931–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Geissler, M.; Martens, U.; Knorrenschield, R.; Greeve, J.; Florschuetz, A.; Tannapfel, A.; Wessendorf, S.; Seufferlein, T.; Kanzler, S.; Heinemann, V.; et al. mFOLFOXIRI + panitumumab versus FOLFOXIRI as first-line treatment in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer m(CRC): A randomized phase II VOLFI trial of the AIO (AIO-KRK0109). Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, v159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Venook, A.P.; Ou, F.-S.; Lenz, H.-J.; Kabbarah, O.; Qu, X.; Niedzwiecki, D.; Zemla, T.; Goldberg, R.M.; Hochster, H.S.; O’Neil, B.H.; et al. Primary (1°) tumor location as an independent prognostic marker from molecular features for overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Analysis of CALGB / SWOG 80405 (Alliance). J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 3503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Arnold, D.; Lueza, B.; Douillard, J.-Y.; Peeters, M.; Lenz, H.-J.; Venook, A.; Heinemann, V.; Van Cutsem, E.; Pignon, J.-P.; Tabernero, J.; et al. Prognostic and predictive value of primary tumour side in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy and EGFR directed antibodies in six randomized trials. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, 1713–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Heinemann, V.; Von Weikersthal, L.F.; Decker, T.; Kiani, A.; Vehling-Kaiser, U.; Al-Batran, S.-E.; Heintges, T.; Lerchenmüller, C.; Kahl, C.; Seipelt, G.; et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 1065–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Venook, A.P.; Niedzwiecki, N.; Lenz, H.-J.; Innocenti, F.; Fruth, B.; Meyerhardt, J.A.; Schrag, D.; Greene, C.; O’Neil, B.H.; Atkins, J.N.; et al. Effect of First-Line Chemotherapy Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab on Overall Survival in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2017, 317, 2392–2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Rivera, F.; Karthaus, M.; Hecht, J.R.; Sevilla, I.; Forget, F.; Fasola, G.; Canon, J.-L.; Guan, X.; Demonty, G.; Schwartzberg, L.S. Final analysis of the randomised PEAK trial: Overall survival and tumour responses during first-line treatment with mFOLFOX6 plus either panitumumab or bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2017, 32, 1179–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Peeters, M.; Price, T.J.; Cervantes, A.; Sobrero, A.F.; Ducreux, M.; Hotko, Y.; André, T.; Chan, E.; Lordick, F.; Punt, C.J.A.; et al. Final results from a randomized phase 3 study of FOLFIRI ± panitumumab for second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2014, 25, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. McGivney, W.T. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cancer 1998, 82, 2057–2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Van Cutsem, E.; Cervantes, A.; Adam, R.; Sobrero, A.; Van Krieken, J.H.; Aderka, D.; Aguilar, E.A.; Bardelli, A.; Benson, A.; Bodoky, G.; et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 1386–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Butte, J.M.; Gönen, M.; Allen, P.J.; Kingham, T.P.; Sofocleous, C.T.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Fong, Y.; Kemeny, N.E.; Jarnagin, W.R.; D’Angelica, M.I. Recurrence After Partial Hepatectomy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Potentially Curative Role of Salvage Repeat Resection. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 2761–2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Adam, R.; Bismuth, H.; Castaing, D.; Waechter, F.; Navarro, F.; Abascal, A.; Majno, P.; Engerran, L. Repeat Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. 1997, 225, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Andreou, A.; Brouquet, A.; Abdalla, E.K.; Aloia, T.A.; Curley, S.A.; Vauthey, J.-N. Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal liver metastases is associated with a high survival rate. HPB 2011, 13, 774–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. FDA, FDA Approves First-Line Immunotherapy for Patients with MSI-H/dMMR Metastatic Colorectal Cancer, (2020). Available online: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-line-immunotherapy-patients-msi-hdmmr-metastatic-colorectal-cancer (accessed on 5 September 2020).
  89. Andre, T.; Shiu, K.-K.; Kim, T.W.; Jensen, B.V.; Jensen, L.H.; Punt, C.J.A.; Smith, D.M.; Garcia-Carbonero, R.; Benavides, M.; Gibbs, P.; et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: The phase 3 KEYNOTE-177 Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, LBA4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lenz, H.-J.; Lonardi, S.; Zagonel, V.; Van Cutsem, E.; Limon, M.L.; Wong, K.Y.M.; Hendlisz, A.; Aglietta, M.; Garcia-Alfonso, P.; Neyns, B.; et al. Nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab as first-line therapy in microsatellite instability-high/DNA mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: Clinical update. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ludford, K.; Cohen, R.; Svrcek, M.; Foo, W.C.; Colle, R.; Parc, Y.; Thomas, J.V.; Morris, V.K.; Kopetz, S.; Chang, G.J.; et al. Pathological Tumor Response Following Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Deficient Mismatch Repair Advanced Colorectal Cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dasari, A.; Grothey, A.; Kopetz, S. Circulating Tumor DNA–Defined Minimal Residual Disease in Solid Tumors: Opportunities to Accelerate the Development of Adjuvant Therapies. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 3437–3440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Overman, M.J.; Vauthey, J.-N.; Aloia, T.A.; Conrad, C.; Chun, Y.S.; Pereira, A.A.L.; Jiang, Z.; Crosby, S.; Wei, S.; Raghav, K.P.S.; et al. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) utilizing a high-sensitivity panel to detect minimal residual disease post liver hepatectomy and predict disease recurrence. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 3522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bidard, F.-C.; Kiavue, N.; Ychou, M.; Cabel, L.; Stern, M.-H.; Madic, J.; Saliou, A.; Rampanou, A.; Decraene, C.; Bouché, O.; et al. Circulating Tumor Cells and Circulating Tumor DNA Detection in Potentially Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Ancillary Study to the Unicancer Prodige-14 Trial. Cells 2019, 8, 516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Cancers 12 03535 g001 550
Figure 1. Decision tree for timing and sequence of systemic therapy and surgery for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver.
Figure 1. Decision tree for timing and sequence of systemic therapy and surgery for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver.
Cancers 12 03535 g001
Table
Table 1. Clinical risk criteria for assessing the risk of recurrence.
Table 1. Clinical risk criteria for assessing the risk of recurrence.
Criteria *Fong [7]Nordlinger [10]Nagashima [11]Konopke [12]
Disease-free interval <12 months<24 months-Synchronous liver metastases
No. of metastases>1>3>1 >3
Largest liver metastases >5 cm>5 cm>5 cm-
Lymph node staging ≥N1≥N1≥N1-
Tumor staging-pT4pT4-
Pre-op CEA (ng/mL)>200 --≥200
Age (years) ->60 --
Risk groups (scores)Low0–20–20–1 0
Intermediate -3–4 2–3 1
High3–55–6 ≥4≥2
* 1 point assigned for each risk factor, CEA = carcinoembryonic antigen.
Table
Table 2. Peri-operative chemotherapy for resectable disease. PFS, progression-free survival, OS, overall survival, FOLFOX4, Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin.
Table 2. Peri-operative chemotherapy for resectable disease. PFS, progression-free survival, OS, overall survival, FOLFOX4, Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin.
Author, YearNArms Response RatesPFS Outcomes (Months)OS Outcomes (Months)
Nordlinger, 2008, 2013 [26,30] 364FOLFOX4 43%Median (m) PFS: 18.7 v. 11.7
3-year PFS^: 35.4 (28.1–42.7) v. 28.1 (21.3–35.3)		mOS: 61.4 (51.0–83.4) v. 54.3 (41.9–79.4)
5-yr OS (%): 51.2 (43.6–58.3) v. 47.8 (40.3–55.0)
Observation-
Primrose, 2014 [33]
Bridgewater, 2020 [34]		257Chemotherapy 1 + Cetuximab 70%mPFS: 15.5 (13.0–19.0) v. 22.2 (18.3–26.8)mOS: 55.4 (43.5–71.5) v. 81.0 (59.6-NR)
Chemotherapy 162%
1 Chemotherapy: oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil, oxaliplatin plus capecitabine, or irinotecan plus fluorouracil; ^ Did not reach statistical significance.
Table
Table 3. Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected disease. DFS, disease-free survival.
Table 3. Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected disease. DFS, disease-free survival.
Author, YearNArmsDFSOS
Portier, 2006 [40]173
(aim = 200) 		5FU/LVmDFS: 24.4 (SE = 3.6) v. 17.6 (SE = 2.7) months [∆ = 6.8 months]
5-year DFS: 33.5% v. 26.7% [∆ = 6.8%]		mOS ^: 62.1 (SE 10.7) v. 46.4 (SE 4.6) months [∆ = 15.7 months]
5-year OS ^: 51.1% v. 41.1% [∆ = 10.0%]
Observation
Mitry, 2008 [41]278
pooled analysis of 2 trials FFCD ENG		5FU/LVmDFS ^: 27.9 v.18.8 months [∆ = 9.1 months]
5-year DFS ^: 36.7 (24.5–41.1) v. 27.7 (20.0–35.9) [∆ = 9.0%]		mOS ^: 62.2 vs. 47.3 months [∆ = 14.9 months]
5-year OS ^: 52.8% (43.7–61.3) v. 39.6 (30.7 to 48.3) [∆ = 13.2%]
Observation
Ychou, 2009 [44]306
(aim = 420) 		FOLFIRImDFS: 24.7 v. 21.6 months [∆ = 3.1]
2-year DFS ^: 46% v. 51%		3-year OS ^: 72% v. 73%
5FU/LV
Kobayashi, 2014 [43]180 UFT/LV3-year DFS: 38.6% v. 32.3% [∆ = 6.3%]3-year OS ^: 82.8% v, 81.6%
Observation
Kanemitsu, 2020 [9]300mFOLFOX63-year DFS: 52.1% (43.2–60.2) v. 41.5% (33.2–49.6) [∆ = 10.6%]5-year OS ^: 69.5% (59.6–77.5) v. 83.0% (74.5–88.9)
mOS after recurrence: 38.4 v. 87.6 months
Observation
5FU: Fluorouracil; FOLFIRI: fluorouracil, irinotecan; UFT: uracil/tegafur; LV: leucovorin; mFOLFOX6: Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin; ^ Did not reach statistical significance.
Table
Table 4. Regimens for conversion chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer with liver metastases.
Table 4. Regimens for conversion chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer with liver metastases.
ClassRegimensTrialsORR (%)Resection Rate (%)
Chemotherapy-only regimensFOLFOX Delaunoit, 2005 [47]543
Alberts, 2005 [48]5940
Falcone, 2007 [49]346 (R0)
Saltz, 2008 (NO16966) [50]476
Bokemeyer, 2008 (OPUS) [73]374 (R0)
Douillard, 2010 (PRIME)487 (R0)
XELOXSaltz,2008 (NO16966) [50]476
FOLFIRIBarone, 2007 [54]4732
Skof, 2009 [52]4824 (R0)
Pozzo, 2004 [53]47 32 (R0)
Van Custem, 2009 (CRYSTAL) [31]381.7 (R0)
FOLFOX/FOLFIRIYe, 2013 [75]297.4 (R0)
XELIRISkof, 2009 [52]4924 (R0)
FOLFOXIRI Falcone, 2007 [49]6015 (R0)
Geissler, 2017 (VOLFI) [76]5436
Folprecht, 2020 (AIO-CELIM2) [63]72-
Ychou, 2008 [55]7026 (R0)
Cytotoxics + Anti-EGFR FOLFOX + CetuximabFolprecht, 2010 [71]7038 (R0)
Ji, 2013 [72]7327 (R0)
Bokemeyer, 2008 (OPUS) [73]6110 (R0)
FOLFIRI + Cetuximab Folprecht, 2010 [71]4130 (R0)
Van Custem, 2009 (CRYSTAL) [31]474.8 (R0)
Folprecht, 2020 (AIO-CELIM2) [63]81-
FOLFOX/FOLFIRI + Cetuximab Ye, 2013 [75]5726 (R0)
FOLFOXIRI + Cetuximab Folprecht, 2020 (AIO-CELIM2)86-
FOLFOX + PanitumumabDouillard, 2010 (PRIME) [74]558.3 (R0)
FOLFOXIRI + Panitumumab Geissler, 2017 [76]8660
Cytotoxics + Bevacizumab FOLFOX + Bevacizumab Saltz, 2008 (NO16966) [50]498.4
Gruenberger, 2015 (OLIVIA) [60]6223 (R0)
XELOX + Bevacizumab Saltz, 2008 (NO16966) [50]498.4
Wong, 2011 [64]7847.8
Gruenberger, 2008 [67]7392.9 (R0)
FOLFIRI + BevacizumabLoupakis, 2014 (TRIBE) [61]5312 (R0)
FOLFOXIRI + BevacizumabMasi, 2010 [62]7726 (R0)
Loupakis, 2014 (TRIBE) [61] 6515 (R0)
Gruenberger, 2015 (OLIVIA) [60]8149 (R0)
Folprecht, 2020 (AIO-CELIM2) [63]70-
FOLFOX: Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin; XELOX: Capecitabine, Oxaliplatin; FOLFIRI: Fluorouracil, Irinotecan; XELIRI: Capecitabine, Irinotecan; FOLFOXIRI: Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, Irinotecan.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chan, G.; Chee, C.E. Perioperative Chemotherapy for Liver Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer. Cancers 2020, 12, 3535. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12123535

AMA Style

Chan G, Chee CE. Perioperative Chemotherapy for Liver Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer. Cancers. 2020; 12(12):3535. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12123535

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chan, Gloria, and Cheng E. Chee. 2020. "Perioperative Chemotherapy for Liver Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer" Cancers 12, no. 12: 3535. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12123535

APA Style

Chan, G., & Chee, C. E. (2020). Perioperative Chemotherapy for Liver Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer. Cancers, 12(12), 3535. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12123535

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop