Next Article in Journal
Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Pituitary Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Local Treatments in the Unresectable Patient with Colorectal Cancer Metastasis: A Review from the Point of View of the Medical Oncologist
Previous Article in Journal
The Evolving Role of Radiofrequency Guided Localisation in Breast Surgery: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Role of Resin Microsphere Y90 Dosimetry in Predicting Objective Tumor Response, Survival and Treatment Related Toxicity in Surgically Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastasis: A Retrospective Single Institution Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 13
Issue 19
10.3390/cancers13194997
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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Repeat Local Treatment of Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases, the Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: An Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) Based Study

by
Madelon Dijkstra
1,*,
Sanne Nieuwenhuizen
1,
Robbert S. Puijk
1,
Florentine E. F. Timmer
1,
Bart Geboers
1,
Evelien A. C. Schouten
1,
Jip Opperman
2,
Hester J. Scheffer
1,
Jan J. J. de Vries
1,
Kathelijn S. Versteeg
3,
Birgit I. Lissenberg-Witte
4,
Martijn R. Meijerink
1 and
Monique Petrousjka van den Tol
5
1
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Location Alkmaar, 1800 AM Alkmaar, The Netherlands
3
Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4
Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5
Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, VU Medical Center Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2021, 13(19), 4997; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13194997
Submission received: 2 August 2021 / Revised: 2 October 2021 / Accepted: 3 October 2021 / Published: 5 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Management of Colorectal Cancer Metastatic Disease)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Following curative intent local treatment for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), 64 to 85% of patients develop distant intrahepatic recurrence. Repeat local treatment, comprising partial hepatectomy and/or thermal ablation, is currently considered standard of care to treat these recurrences. This AmCORE-based study evaluated efficacy, safety and survival outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by repeat local treatment compared to upfront repeat local treatment to eradicate recurrent CRLM. Adding NAC prior to repeat local treatment did not improve survival or distant and local recurrence rates, nor did it affect periprocedural morbidity or length of hospital stay. The results of this comparative assessment do not substantiate the routine use of NAC prior to repeat local treatment of CRLM. Because the exact role of NAC (in different subgroups) remains inconclusive, we are currently designing a phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT), COLLISION RELAPSE trial, directly comparing upfront repeat local treatment to neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment.

Abstract

This cohort study aimed to evaluate efficacy, safety, and survival outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by repeat local treatment compared to upfront repeat local treatment of recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). A total of 152 patients with 267 tumors from the prospective Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) met the inclusion criteria. Two cohorts of patients with recurrent CRLM were compared: patients who received chemotherapy prior to repeat local treatment (32 patients) versus upfront repeat local treatment (120 patients). Data from May 2002 to December 2020 were collected. Results on the primary endpoint overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and distant progression-free survival (DPFS) were reviewed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Subsequently, uni- and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models, accounting for potential confounders, were estimated. Additionally, subgroup analyses, according to patient, initial and repeat local treatment characteristics, were conducted. Procedure-related complications and length of hospital stay were compared using chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS from date of diagnosis of recurrent disease was 98.6%, 72.5%, and 47.7% for both cohorts combined. The crude survival analysis did not reveal a significant difference in OS between the two cohorts (p = 0.834), with 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS of 100.0%, 73.2%, and 57.5% for the NAC group and 98.2%, 72.3%, and 45.3% for the upfront repeat local treatment group, respectively. After adjusting for two confounders, comorbidities (p = 0.010) and primary tumor location (p = 0.023), the corrected HR in multivariable analysis was 0.839 (95% CI, 0.416–1.691; p = 0.624). No differences between the two cohorts were found with regards to LTPFS (HR = 0.662; 95% CI, 0.249–1.756; p = 0.407) and DPFS (HR = 0.798; 95% CI, 0.483–1.318; p = 0.378). No heterogeneous treatment effects were detected in subgroup analyses according to patient, disease, and treatment characteristics. No significant difference was found in periprocedural complications (p = 0.843) and median length of hospital stay (p = 0.600) between the two cohorts. Chemotherapy-related toxicity was reported in 46.7% of patients. Adding NAC prior to repeat local treatment did not improve OS, LTPFS, or DPFS, nor did it affect periprocedural morbidity or length of hospital stay. The results of this comparative assessment do not substantiate the routine use of NAC prior to repeat local treatment of CRLM. Because the exact role of NAC (in different subgroups) remains inconclusive, we are currently designing a phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT), COLLISION RELAPSE trial, directly comparing upfront repeat local treatment (control) to neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment (intervention).

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-associated deaths worldwide [1]. High mortality rates are mainly attributed to colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), occurring in approximately 50% of all patients with CRC [2,3,4]. Systemic therapy increased 5-year overall survival (OS) of unresectable CRLM from 0–3% for untreated CRLM to 11% for patients treated with palliative chemotherapy [5,6,7,8,9]. Local treatment with curative intent improves 5-year OS up to 58% for resectable and/or ablatable CRLM [10,11,12,13,14,15]. Unfortunately, roughly 20% of patients with CRLM are eligible for local treatment options, such as partial hepatectomy or thermal ablation (i.e., radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA)) [16]. Whereas partial hepatectomy was considered standard of care for resectable CRLM in the last few decades, thermal ablation for small unresectable CRLM is now also considered as an option resulting in cure [3,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Five-year OS of initially unresectable CRLM reaches, when successfully downstaged with induction chemotherapy followed by local treatment, 33% [25].
Recently, the authors of the JCOG 0603 trial concluded that, in patients with locally treatable first-time-occurring CRLM, adjuvant chemotherapy improves disease-free survival (DFS) but decreases OS compared to local treatment alone [26]. The results of the JCOG 0603 trial support the outcomes of Nordlinger et al. in the EORTC 40983 trial. Nordlinger et al. reported no benefit in the 5-year OS for perioperative chemotherapy [27]. Although still under debate, the contentious results of the JCOG 0603 trial and the EORTC 40983 trial invalidate the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed locally treatable CRLM.
In contrast to the findings of Nordlinger et al. improved survival rates and decreased risk of recurrences are suggested in selected patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by initial local treatment of CRLM [27,28,29]. Therefore, the role of NAC before first local treatment in initially resectable CRLM remains inconclusive [27]. Therewithal theoretically, NAC is believed to eliminate micrometastatic disease and eradicate dormant cancer cells in the liver [30]. Moreover, NAC is suggested to allow for improved selection of candidates that could benefit from local treatment, and it might increase complete resection rates and reduce risks associated with local treatment [31,32,33]. In addition, NAC is recommended to improve survival in high-risk patients with more than two independent prognostic risk factors by Zhu et al. [28]. However, the potential disadvantages, including sinusoidal obstruction syndrome and liver steatosis, associated with repeated cycles of chemotherapy should be taken into account [34,35].
Technical developments in partial hepatectomy and thermal ablation have resulted in enhanced local tumor control and reduced local tumor progression (LTP) rates, emphasizing the role of margin sizes in achieving technical success (R0 resection/A0 ablations) [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. These successes can be established, for example, by using image fusion, 3D assessment of ablation zones, and immediate assessment of the ablation margin by fluorescence stains in thermal ablation or using near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green in minimally invasive surgery [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,48,49,50].
Despite the recent advances and technical improvements in local treatment, 64 to 85% of locally treated patients develop new CRLM, mostly within three years after first local treatment [51,52,53,54]. Upfront repeat local treatment, consisting of resection and/or thermal ablation, shows 5-year OS up to 51% in treating these recurrences [54,55,56,57,58,59]. One systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed the role of NAC in repeat local treatment of recurrent CRLM, but results were inconclusive [60]. No significant difference in OS was found for repeat local treatment after NAC and repeat local treatment alone in the majority of the analyzed studies [61,62,63,64]. Nevertheless, a combination of NAC and local treatment for recurrent CRLM was recommended by merely all [61,62,63,64]. Despite controversial results, one large multicenter study succeeded in showing promising significant evidence for increased survival in univariable and multivariable analysis [65].
This Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) based study aimed to analyze efficacy, safety, and survival outcomes after NAC followed by repeat local treatment compared to upfront repeat local treatment of recurrent CRLM.

2. Materials and Methods

This single-center prospective cohort study was conducted at the Amsterdam University Medical Centers—location VU Medical Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands, a tertiary referral center for hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal malignancies. Data were extracted from the AmCORE prospectively maintained CRLM database. Approval of the study was granted by the affiliated Institutional Review Board (METc 2021.0121). The analyzed study data are reported in accordance with the ‘Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology’ (STROBE) guideline [66].

2.1. Patient Selection

Data of all patients with new recurrent CRLM after curative-intent local treatment (minor/major hepatectomy, thermal ablation, SBRT, and/or IRE), upfront eligible for repeat local treatment, were obtained from the prospective database. Supplementary recollecting of data was performed by retrospectively searching the hospital’s electronic patient database when necessary and to confirm if the recurrent CRLMs were technically/anatomically locally treatable. When upfront eligibility was unclear, an interventional radiologist (MM) and a surgeon (PvdT) re-evaluated the cross-sectional imaging exams performed prior to the start of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing (minor/major) partial hepatectomy, thermal ablation, or a combination of resection and thermal ablation in the same procedure for recurring CRLM were included. Patients lost to follow-up or undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or irreversible electroporation (IRE) for recurring new CRLM were excluded, as SBRT and IRE (until publication of the official results of the COLDFIRE-2 trial) were considered an experimental treatment [67,68]. In addition, the inability to perform minor/major hepatectomy and/or thermal ablation was a direct indication for induction chemotherapy.

2.2. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Conformal to national guidelines, adjuvant chemotherapy was not administered [69]. Patients received NAC when recurrent locally treatable CRLM was diagnosed early after initial local treatment and when chemotherapy was likely to reduce the risk of recurrences or progression of disease. Patients were reassessed after NAC for repeat local treatment. Microsatellite instability (MSI) and rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (RAS) and v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutation status were not routinely established.

2.3. Repeat Local Treatment Procedures

Follow-up protocol after initial curative-intent local treatment of CRLM consisted of cross-sectional imaging including contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) and 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) CT scans, using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (ceMRI) with diffusion-weighted images to detect recurrent CRLM. The choice of the addition of NAC to the repeat local treatment procedure and choice of repeat local treatment was based on guidelines (where available) and local expertise, determined by multidisciplinary tumor board evaluations attended by (interventional) radiologists, oncological or hepatobiliary surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, nuclear medicine physicians, gastroenterologists, and pathologists. Repeat local treatment was conducted by an experienced interventional radiologist (mastery degree in image-guided tumor ablation, having performed and/or supervised >100 thermal ablation procedures) or by an experienced, certified oncological or hepatobiliary surgeon (with broad expertise, having performed and/or supervised >100 liver tumor resection procedures). The extent, specific technique, and resection margins (with the preoperative estimation and intention of a pathological R0 resection) were determined at the discretion of the performing oncological or hepatobiliary surgeon and pathologically confirmed. The surgeon removed all tumors whether or not combined with thermal ablation by the interventional radiologist. Thermal ablation procedures were performed according to the CIRSE quality improvement guidelines (with an intentional tumor-free ablation margin >1 cm, with conformation by computational techniques and image fusion or estimated in the earlier years), at the discretion of the interventional radiologist [70]. In patients with no contra-indications (proximity of critical structures), percutaneous approach of thermal ablation was preferred. The interventional radiologist ablated all tumors whether or not combined with partial hepatectomy. Residual unablated tumor tissue was retreated with overlapping ablations when insufficiently ablated margins were presumed and/or confirmed by ceCT or ceMRI.

2.4. Follow-Up

Follow-up protocol, conforming to national guidelines, consisted of 18F-FDG-PET-CT with diagnostic ceCTs of the chest and abdomen in the first year 3/4-monthly, in the 2nd and 3rd year 6-monthly and in the 4th and 5th year 12-monthly after repeat local treatment [69]. ceMRI with diffusion-weighted images was used as problem solver. Only in the context of a presumably incomplete percutaneous ablation procedure (residual unablated tumor tissue in case of presumed insufficiently ablated margins), a ceCT scan was performed within one to six weeks after the repeat local treatment. The definition of LTP comprised a solid and unequivocally enlarging mass or focal 18F-FDG PET avidity at the surface of the ablated tumor or resection margin (if the diagnostic ceCT did not reveal infectious or inflammatory changes), or histopathological confirmation. Any disease recurrence distant from the repeat local treatment site was reported as distant progression.

2.5. Data Collection and Statistical Analysis

Patient and treatment characteristics were collected from the AmCORE database. Continuous variables are reported as mean with standard deviation (SD) when normally distributed and as median with interquartile range (IQR) when non-normally distributed, and categorical variables are reported as number of patients with percentages. The patients were divided into two groups regardless of initial treatment: NAC followed by repeat local treatment and upfront repeat local treatment. The Fisher’s exact test was used to compare dichotomous characteristics between groups, the Pearson chi-square test was used for categorical characteristics, and the independent samples t-test or Mann–Whitney U test was used for continuous characteristics.
Primary endpoint OS was defined as time-to-event from diagnosis of recurrent CRLM, and secondary endpoints local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and distant progression-free survival (DPFS) were defined as time-to-event from repeat local treatment. Death without local or distant progression (competing risk) was censored for LTPFS and DPFS. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 5.0 (CTCAE) was used to describe complications of repeat local treatment and chemotherapy [71]. The 60-day complications related to NAC were reported, and subsequent complications were also reported when found to be undoubtedly related to chemotherapy.
Primary endpoint OS was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method using the log-rank test and compared between the two groups using Cox proportional hazards regression models, accounting for potential confounders in multivariable analysis. Secondary endpoint complications was reviewed using the chi-square test, and LTPFS and DPFS were reviewed using the Kaplan–Meier method using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression models to account for potential confounders. Variables with p < 0.100 in univariable analysis were included in multivariable analysis. Significant variables, p = 0.050, were reported as potential confounders and further investigated. Variables were considered confounders when the association between the two treatment groups and OS, DPFS, and LTPFS differed > 10% in the corrected model. Corrected hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were reported. Length of hospital stay was assessed using Mann–Whitney U test. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate heterogeneous treatment effects according to patient, initial, chemotherapeutic, and repeat local treatment characteristics.
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS® Version 24.0 (IBM® Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) [72] and R version 4.0.3. (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria) [73], supported by a biostatistician (BLW).

3. Results

Patients with recurrent CRLM were identified from the AmCORE database, revealing 152 patients fulfilling selection criteria for inclusion in the analyses of recurrent CRLM, of which 120 were treated with upfront repeat local treatment and 32 were treated with NAC (Figure 1). In these 152 patients, treated between May 2002 and December 2020, 267 tumors were locally treated with repeat ablation, repeat partial hepatectomy, or a combination of resection and thermal ablation in the same procedure.

3.1. Patient Characteristics

Patient characteristics of the 152 included patients are presented in Table 1. Age ranged between 27 and 87 years old. The number of treated tumors in repeat local treatment showed a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.001). Median time between initial local treatment and diagnosis of recurrent CRLM was 6.8 months (IQR 4.0–13.0), 7.6 months (IQR 3.9–14.7) in the NAC group and 6.8 months (IQR 4.0–12.6) in the upfront repeat local treatment group (p = 0.733). Overall, median tumor size was 16.0 mm (IQR 10.0–23.0); median tumor size was 13.0 mm (IQR 9.0–24.0) for NAC and 17.0 mm (IQR 12.0–22.0) for upfront repeat local treatment. Median follow-up time after repeat local treatment of the NAC group was 28.6 months and after upfront repeat local treatment was 28.1 months. No significant difference in margin size < 5 mm of repeat local treatment was found between the NAC group (10.1%) and upfront repeat local treatment group (10.3%) (p = 0.891). Two tumors in the NAC group undergoing resection as repeat local treatment had 0 mm margins; LTP was treated with IRE. One tumor in the upfront repeat local treatment group treated with resection had 0 mm margins; LTP was treated with resection. One tumor in the upfront repeat local treatment treated with thermal ablation had 0 mm margins; no LTP occurred. Chemotherapy before initial local treatment was administered in 31.8% of the NAC group and 37.9% of the upfront repeat local treatment group (p = 0.585).

3.2. Treatment Characteristics

Treatment characteristics of the procedures per patient concerning type of repeat local treatment and approach of the NAC and upfront repeat local treatment groups are shown in Table 2. No significant difference in type of repeat local treatment and approach was found between the two groups. The majority of the repeat local treatment procedures were thermal ablations with percutaneous approach.
Median length of hospital stay after repeat local treatment was 1.0 days (IQR 1.0–4.0) for the entire cohort, 1.0 days (IQR 1.0–4.8) for the NAC group, and 1.0 days (1.0–4.0) for the upfront repeat local treatment group (p = 0.917).
Table 3 shows the comparison of treatment characteristics, concerning type of systems used for thermal ablation and type of partial hepatectomy, per tumor in the NAC and upfront repeat local treatment groups. Type of thermal ablation and type of repeat resection differed significantly between the two groups per tumor (p < 0.001).
Table 4 presents chemotherapeutic characteristics per patient in the NAC group, comprising chemotherapeutic regimen and number of cycles. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) were frequently used as chemotherapeutic agents with additional monoclonal antibodies (bevacizumab).

3.3. Complications

No differences in complication rates were found between NAC followed by repeat local treatment and the upfront repeat local treatment (p = 0.843) (Table 5). Total periprocedural complication rate was 18.8% (24/124 procedures); periprocedural complication rate was 20.0% (6/30 procedures) in the NAC group and 18.3% (18/98 procedures) in the upfront repeat local treatment group. Two grade 4 complications were reported: one patient suffered from intestinal wall injury resulting in a colostomy and one patient was admitted to the intensive care unit for respiratory insufficiency from pneumonia, both in the upfront repeat local treatment group.
Complications of NAC are presented in Table 6. Reported complications of NAC are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, hand–foot syndrome, and polyneuropathy, nearly all resulting in dose reduction.

3.4. Local Tumor Progression-Free Survival

LTP developed at follow-up in 29 out of 267 tumors (10.9%), 24/193 (12.4%) in the upfront repeat local treatment group and 5/74 (6.8%) in the NAC group (Figure 2). Overall crude comparison between the two groups showed no significant difference in LTPFS (HR, 0.621; 95% CI, 0.236–1.635; p = 0.335) (Table 7). Overall, 1-year LTPFS was 92.7%, 3-year LTPFS was 84.8%, and 5-year LTPFS was 84.8%. One-, three- and five-year LTPFS were respectively 96.8%, 88.8%, and 88.8% for the NAC group and 91.4%, 83.5%, and 83.5% for the upfront repeat local treatment group.
Four potential confounders, body mass index (BMI, p = 0.079), initial CRLM diagnosis (synchronous vs. metachronous; p = 0.004), time between initial treatment and diagnosis repeat CRLM (p = 0.004), and number of recurrent metastases (p = 0.027), were identified in univariable analyses. The variables were included in multivariable analysis to analyze whether the potential confounders associated with the two treatment groups influenced LTPFS (Table 7). After adjusting for the confounders time between initial treatment and diagnosis recurrence (p = 0.018) and initial CRLM diagnosis (p = 0.022), corrected HR was 0.662 (95% CI, 0.249–1.756; p = 0.407).

3.5. Distant Progression-Free survival

Distant progression was reported in 103 of 152 patients (67.8%) at follow-up with a median time to distant progression of 9.2 months, 9.4 months in the upfront repeat local treatment group and 7.8 months in the NAC group (Figure 3). After upfront repeat local treatment and NAC followed by repeat local treatment, distant progression rate was 70.0% (84/120 patients) and 59.4% (19/32 patients), respectively. No significant difference in DPFS was found in crude comparison (HR, 0.798; 95% CI, 0.483–1.318; p = 0.378) (Table 8). Overall, 1-year DPFS was 42.3%, 3-year DPFS was 24.1%, and 5-year DPFS was 20.1%. One-, three- and five-year DPFS were respectively 44.1%, 33.1%, and 33.1% for the NAC group and 41.9%, 21.0%, and 15.8% for the upfront repeat local treatment group.
The potential confounders age (p = 0.030), initial CRLM diagnosis (synchronous vs. metachronous; p = 0.013), initial number of CRLM (p = 0.083), time between initial treatment and diagnosis recurrence (p = 0.031), number of recurrent metastases (p = 0.027), and size of largest recurrent metastasis (p = 0.006) were identified in univariable analyses. The variables were included in multivariable analysis to analyze whether the potential confounders associated with the two treatment groups influenced DPFS (Table 8). No confounders were revealed; therefore, HR was 0.798 (95% CI, 0.483–1.318; p = 0.378).

3.6. Overall Survival

Median OS from diagnosis of the entire cohort was 56.3 months, 55.4 months in the upfront repeat local treatment group and 65.1 months in the NAC group (Figure 4). During follow-up, a total of 49/152 patients (32.2%) died, 39/120 (32.5%) in the upfront repeat local treatment group and 10/32 (31.3%) in the NAC group. No significant difference was revealed by the crude overall comparison of OS between the two groups (HR, 0.928; 95% CI 0.463–1.861; p = 0.834). Overall, 1-year OS was 98.6%, 3 year-OS was 72.5%, and 5-year OS was 47.7%. One-, three- and five-year OS were respectively 100.0%, 73.2%, and 57.5% for the NAC group and 98.2%, 72.3%, and 45.3% for the upfront repeat local treatment group.
The potential confounders age (p = 0.092), comorbidities (p = 0.019), and primary tumor location (p = 0.054) were identified in univariable analyses. The variables were included in multivariable analysis to analyze whether the potential confounders associated with the two treatment groups influenced OS (Table 9). After adjusting for the confounders comorbidities (p = 0.010) and primary tumor location (p = 0.023), corrected HR was 0.839 (95% CI, 0.416–1.691; p = 0.624).
No heterogeneous treatment effects were detected in subgroup analyses according to patient, initial and repeat local treatment characteristics (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

This AmCORE-based study aimed to evaluate efficacy, safety, and survival outcomes of NAC followed by repeat local treatment compared to upfront repeat local treatment to eradicate recurrent CRLM. No differences in periprocedural complication rates and length of hospital stay were found between NAC followed by repeat local treatment and the upfront repeat local treatment. Adding NAC prior to repeat local treatment did not improve OS, LTPFS, or DPFS. Results on DPFS and LTPFS suggested a trend towards improved progression-free survival in the NAC group. The curves of DPFS are overlapping at first, and interestingly, the lines start to diverge from 18 months onwards. No heterogeneous treatment effects were detected in subgroup analyses according to patient and initial and repeat local treatment characteristics.
A recent pooled meta-analysis supports our results and reported no difference in OS between NAC followed by repeat local treatment and upfront repeat local treatment (HR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.48–1.19; p = 0.22) [60]. However, the included retrospective comparative series showed a trend towards improved survival for the addition of NAC to repeat local treatment, and NAC was recommended by merely all [34,61,62,63,64,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83]. Other studies recommended NAC to enhance the rate of repeat local treatment, which could provide increased OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates [76,77,78,79,80,81]. In contrast to our results, the largest registry study to date (LiverMetSurvery) showed an OS benefit favoring the use of NAC before repeat local treatment: 5-year OS: 61.5% vs. 43.7% (HR = 0.529; 95% CI 0.299–0.934) [65]. They advocated NAC followed by repeat local treatment to adequately select good candidates and to control rapidly progressive disease in early recurrent CRLM.
The role of NAC in initial and repeat local treatment is mostly reserved for limited purposes. While induction chemotherapy can be used in patients with unresectable downstageable disease or in patients with difficult resectable disease, to downsize CRLM to resectable disease or to reduce the surgical risk [25,29], NAC can be used in selected cases with initially resectable disease to decrease the risk of recurrences or progression of disease [27,29]. NAC is suggested to treat micrometastatic disease, dormant cancer cells in the liver, and occult metastases, not addressed by repeat local treatment [30]. Furthermore, recurrent CRLM could indicate a high risk profile, in which aggressive oncosurgical treatment, consisting of NAC and repeat local treatment, could be beneficial [28,84]. The use of NAC could allow for better patient selection of candidates eligible for repeat local treatment and decrease risks of repeat local treatment [31,32,33]. However, a recent retrospective study by Vigano et al. suggests a ‘test-of-time’ approach, comprising upfront thermal ablation without NAC to adjust treatment strategy to tumor biology as earlier described by Sofocleous et al. [59,85].
Despite several advantages, the potential disadvantages of chemotherapy must be taken into account [30]. Disadvantages of NAC are delayed repeat local treatment, chemotherapy-associated liver injuries associated with repeated cycles of chemotherapy, complete response making metastases difficult to detect, and added direct costs [26,27,35,86,87]. Especially, the possible liver injuries associated with drug-specific toxicity, vascular damage, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (oxaliplatin), liver steatosis, and steatohepatitis (5-fluorouracil or irinotecan) must be reckoned with [34,35]. Nevertheless, Andreou et al. did not report chemotherapy-related impact on surgical results and postoperative morbidities, supporting our results [83]. Our study detected no differences in periprocedural complication rate (p = 0.843) and mean length of hospital stay (p = 0.917) either. However, the chemotherapeutic side-effects and complications during treatment (46.7%) and the effect of NAC on quality of life should be taken into consideration [88].
The relatively high number of patients and tumors, compared to results reported by a recent systematic review and meta-analysis [60], allowed sufficiently powered statistical analyses, therefore strengthening this study. The nonrandomized study design is mostly accountable for the potential limitations of this study, comprising selection bias and confounding. After accounting for potential confounders in multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards model and performing subgroup analyses to identify heterogeneous treatment effects, the risk of confounding should be minimized and the risk of residual confounding is limited. However, the MSI and RAS and BRAF mutation status were not routinely established and could be potential confounders leading to residual bias, as RAS mutations status might influence LTPFS [12,43,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98]. The selection of patients for NAC was based on local expertise, determined by multidisciplinary tumor board evaluations, and not preceded by protocol, which may have driven treatment decisions and could preserve selection bias and might impair the generalizability of the outcomes. Furthermore, population bias may be caused by the long study duration with gradual changes in repeat local treatment options and chemotherapeutic regimens. Even so, the comparison of patient characteristics of the two cohorts showed no difference.

5. Conclusions

To conclude, NAC did not increase OS, LTPFS, or DPFS rate. Notwithstanding, no difference in periprocedural morbidity and length of hospital stay was detected between the NAC group and upfront repeat local treatment group. Although the recommendation of NAC followed by repeat local treatment is frequently reported in recent literature, the exact role of NAC prior to repeat local treatment in recurrent CRLM remains inconclusive. Following recent literature, chemotherapy should be considered to downsize CRLM to resectable disease or to reduce the surgical risk to minimally invasive resection or percutaneous ablation. However, the results of this comparative assessment do not substantiate the routine use of NAC prior to repeat local treatment of early recurrent CRLM. Clarification is needed to establish the most optimal treatment strategy for recurrent disease. In light of the high incidence of recurrent colorectal liver metastases, we are currently designing a phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT) directly comparing upfront repeat local treatment (control) with neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment (intervention) to assess the added value of NAC in recurrent CRLM (COLLISION RELAPSE trial).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D., M.R.M. and M.P.v.d.T.; methodology, M.D., S.N., F.E.F.T. and B.I.L.-W.; software, M.D. and B.I.L.-W.; validation, M.D., S.N., R.S.P., F.E.F.T., B.G., E.A.C.S., J.O., H.J.S., J.J.J.d.V., K.S.V., B.I.L.-W., M.R.M. and M.P.v.d.T.; formal analysis, M.D., S.N., F.E.F.T. and B.I.L.-W.; investigation, M.D. and S.N.; resources, M.D. and B.I.L.-W.; data curation, M.D., S.N., R.S.P., E.A.C.S., J.O., M.R.M. and M.P.v.d.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D.; writing—review and editing, M.D., S.N., R.S.P., F.E.F.T., B.G., E.A.C.S., J.O., H.J.S., J.J.J.d.V., K.S.V., B.I.L.-W., M.R.M. and M.P.v.d.T.; visualization, M.D., S.N., F.E.F.T., M.R.M. and M.P.v.d.T.; supervision, M.R.M. and M.P.v.d.T.; project administration, M.D.; funding acquisition, not applicable. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the affiliated Institutional Review Board (METc VUmc: 2021.0121).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived as the study was not subject to the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act judged by the affiliated Institutional Review Board (METc VUmc: 2021.0121).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

18F-FDG[18F]-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose
AmCOREAmsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry
BRAFV-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B
COLLISIONColorectal Liver Metastases: Surgery vs. Thermal Ablation
CeContrast enhancement
CIConfidence interval
CRCColorectal cancer
CRLMColorectal liver metastases
CTComputed tomography
CTCAECommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events
DPFSDistant progression-free survival
HRHazard ratio
IKNLThe Dutch Comprehensive Cancer Centre; Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland
IREIrreversible electroporation
IQRInterquartile range
JSCCRJapanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum
LTPLocal tumor progression
LTPFSLocal tumor progression-free survival
MRIMagnetic resonance imaging
MSIMicrosatellite instability
MWAMicrowave ablation
NACNeoadjuvant chemotherapy
NICEUK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
OSOverall survival
PETPositron emission tomography
RASRat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog
RCTRandomized controlled trial
RFARadiofrequency ablation
RRRisk ratio
SBRTStereotactic body radiation therapy
SDStandard deviation
STROBEStrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

References

  1. WHO. Estimated Age-Standardized Incidence Rates (World) in 2020, All Cancers, Both Sexes, All Ages. Available online: http://gco.iarc.fr/today/online-analysis-map (accessed on 4 March 2021).
  2. Engstrand, J.; Nilsson, H.; Strömberg, C.; Jonas, E.; Freedman, J. Colorectal cancer liver metastases—A population-based study on incidence, management and survival. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Meijerink, M.R.; Puijk, R.S.; Van Tilborg, A.A.J.M.; Henningsen, K.H.; Fernandez, L.G.; Neyt, M.; Heymans, J.; Frankema, J.S.; De Jong, K.P.; Richel, D.J.; et al. Radiofrequency and Microwave Ablation Compared to Systemic Chemotherapy and to Partial Hepatectomy in the Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2018, 41, 1189–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Benson, A.B.; Venook, A.P.; Al-Hawary, M.M.; Arain, M.A.; Chen, Y.-J.; Ciombor, K.K.; Cohen, S.; Cooper, H.S.; Deming, D.; Farkas, L.; et al. Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2021, 19, 329–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Scheele, J.; Stangl, R.; Altendorf-Hofmann, A. Hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma: Impact of surgical resection on the natural history. BJS 1990, 77, 1241–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Stangl, R.; Altendorf-Hofmann, A.; Charnley, R.; Scheele, J. Factors influencing the natural history of colorectal liver metastases. Lancet 1994, 343, 1405–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wagner, J.S.; Adson, M.A.; VAN Heerden, J.A.; Ilstrup, D.M. The Natural History of Hepatic Metastases from Colorectal Cancer. Ann. Surg. 1984, 199, 502–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yang, Q.; Liao, F.; Huang, Y.; Jiang, C.; Liu, S.; He, W.; Kong, P.; Zhang, B.; Xia, L. Longterm effects of palliative local treatment of incurable metastatic lesions in colorectal cancer patients. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 21034–21045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Ruers, T.; Van Coevorden, F.; Punt, C.J.A.; Pierie, J.-P.E.N.; Borel-Rinkes, I.; Ledermann, J.A.; Poston, G.; Bechstein, W.; Lentz, M.-A.; Mauer, M.; et al. Local Treatment of Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results of a Randomized Phase II Trial. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2017, 109, djx015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Gleisner, A.L.; Choti, M.A.; Assumpcao, L.; Nathan, H.; Schulick, R.D.; Pawlik, T.M. Colorectal Liver Metastases. Arch. Surg. 2008, 143, 1204–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. 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] [PubMed]
  12. Dijkstra, M.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.; Timmer, F.; Geboers, B.; Schouten, E.; Opperman, J.; Scheffer, H.; de Vries, J.; Versteeg, K.; et al. Primary Tumor Sidedness, RAS and BRAF Mutations and MSI Status as Prognostic Factors in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases Treated with Surgery and Thermal Ablation: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE). Biomedicines 2021, 9, 962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tomlinson, J.S.; Jarnagin, W.R.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Fong, Y.; Kornprat, P.; Gonen, M.; Kemeny, N.; Brennan, M.F.; Blumgart, L.H.; D’Angelica, M. Actual 10-Year Survival After Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases Defines Cure. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 4575–4580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Creasy, J.M.; Sadot, E.; Koerkamp, B.G.; Chou, J.F.; Gonen, M.; Kemeny, N.E.; Balachandran, V.P.; Kingham, T.P.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Allen, P.J.; et al. Actual 10-year survival after hepatic resection of colorectal liver metastases: What factors preclude cure? Surgery 2018, 163, 1238–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gillams, A.; Goldberg, N.; Ahmed, M.; Bale, R.; Breen, D.; Callstrom, M.; Chen, M.H.; Choi, B.I.; De Baere, T.; Dupuy, D.; et al. Thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases: A position paper by an international panel of ablation experts, the interventional oncology sans frontières meeting 2013. Eur. Radiol. 2015, 25, 3438–3454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. 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, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.; Bemd, B.V.D.; Aldrighetti, L.; Arntz, M.; Boezem, P.V.D.; Bruynzeel, A.; Burgmans, M.; De Cobelli, F.; Coolsen, M.; et al. Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases: Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group. Cancers 2020, 12, 1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Puijk, R.S.; COLLISION Trial Group; Ruarus, A.H.; Vroomen, L.G.P.H.; Van Tilborg, A.A.J.M.; Scheffer, H.J.; Nielsen, K.; De Jong, M.C.; De Vries, J.J.J.; Zonderhuis, B.M.; et al. Colorectal liver metastases: Surgery versus thermal ablation (COLLISION)—A phase III single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kamarinos, N.V.; Kaye, E.; Sofocleous, C. Image-Guided Thermal Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2020, 23, 100672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ahmed, M.; Solbiati, L.; Brace, C.L.; Breen, D.J.; Callstrom, M.R.; Charboneau, J.W.; Chen, M.-H.; Choi, B.I.; De Baère, T.; Dodd, G.D.; et al. Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Standardization of Terminology and Reporting Criteria—A 10-Year Update. Radiology 2014, 273, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Solbiati, L.; Ahmed, M.; Cova, L.; Ierace, T.; Brioschi, M.; Goldberg, S.N. Small Liver Colorectal Metastases Treated with Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation: Local Response Rate and Long-term Survival with Up to 10-year Follow-up. Radiology 2012, 265, 958–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Shady, W.; Petre, E.N.; Gonen, M.; Erinjeri, J.P.; Brown, K.T.; Covey, A.M.; Alago, W.; Durack, J.; Maybody, M.; Brody, L.A.; et al. Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Factors Affecting Outcomes—A 10-year Experience at a Single Center. Radiology 2016, 278, 601–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Wang, Y.; Zheng, J.; Chen, H.; Hu, C.; Sun, B.; Wang, H.; Shi, Q.; Long, J.; Zhang, H.; Li, W. A prognostic nomogram for colorectal cancer liver metastases after percutaneous thermal ablation. Int. J. Hyperth. 2017, 34, 853–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sofocleous, C.T.; Garg, S.; Petrovic, L.M.; Gonen, M.; Petre, E.N.; Klimstra, D.S.; Solomon, S.B.; Brown, K.T.; Brody, L.A.; Covey, A.M.; et al. Ki-67 is a Prognostic Biomarker of Survival after Radiofrequency Ablation of Liver Malignancies. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 19, 4262–4269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. 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. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 644–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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]
  27. Nordlinger, B.; Sorbye, H.; Glimelius, B.; Poston, G.J.; Schlag, P.M.; Rougier, P.; Bechstein, W.O.; 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]
  28. Zhu, D.; Zhong, Y.; Wei, Y.; Ye, L.; Lin, Q.; Ren, L.; Ye, Q.; Liu, T.; Xu, J.; Qin, X. Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e86543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Nordlinger, B.; Van Cutsem, E.; Rougier, P.; Köhne, C.-H.; Ychou, M.; Sobrero, A.; Adam, R.; Arvidsson, D.; Carrato, A.; Georgoulias, V.; et al. Does chemotherapy prior to liver resection increase the potential for cure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer? A report from the European Colorectal Metastases Treatment Group. Eur. J. Cancer 2007, 43, 2037–2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Benoist, S.; Nordlinger, B. The Role of Preoperative Chemotherapy in Patients with Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2009, 16, 2385–2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tanaka, K.; Adam, R.; Shimada, H.; Azoulay, D.; Lévi, F.; Bismuth, H. Role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of multiple colorectal metastases to the liver. BJS 2003, 90, 963–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Allen, P.J.; Kemeny, N.; Jarnagin, W.; DeMatteo, R.; Blumgart, L.; Fong, Y. Importance of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients Undergoing Resection of Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2003, 7, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Adam, R.; Wicherts, D.A.; De Haas, R.J.; Aloia, T.; Lévi, F.; Paule, B.; Guettier, C.; Kunstlinger, F.; Delvart, V.; Azoulay, D.; et al. Complete Pathologic Response After Preoperative Chemotherapy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Myth or Reality? J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 1635–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Adam, R.; Pascal, G.; Azoulay, D.; Tanaka, K.; Castaing, D.; Bismuth, H. Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases. Ann. Surg. 2003, 238, 871–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ismaili, N. Treatment of colorectal liver metastases. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2011, 9, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Van Tilborg, A.A.; Scheffer, H.J.; van der Meijs, B.B.; van Werkum, M.H.; Melenhorst, M.C.; Tol, P.M.V.D.; Meijerink, M.R. Transcatheter CT Hepatic Arteriography–Guided Percutaneous Ablation to Treat Ablation Site Recurrences of Colorectal Liver Metastases: The Incomplete Ring Sign. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2015, 26, 583–587.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Puijk, R.S.; Ruarus, A.H.; Scheffer, H.J.; Vroomen, L.G.; Van Tilborg, A.A.; De Vries, J.J.; Berger, F.H.; Tol, P.M.V.D.; Meijerink, M.R. Percutaneous Liver Tumour Ablation: Image Guidance, Endpoint Assessment, and Quality Control. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2018, 69, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Wang, X.; Sofocleous, C.T.; Erinjeri, J.; Petre, E.N.; Gonen, M.; Do, R.; Brown, K.; Covey, A.M.; Brody, L.A.; Alago, W.; et al. Margin Size is an Independent Predictor of Local Tumor Progression After Ablation of Colon Cancer Liver Metastases. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2012, 36, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Shady, W.; Petre, E.N.; Do, K.G.; Gonen, M.; Yarmohammadi, H.; Brown, K.T.; Kemeny, N.E.; D’Angelica, M.; Kingham, P.T.; Solomon, S.B.; et al. Percutaneous Microwave versus Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Ablation with Clear Margins (A0) Provides the Best Local Tumor Control. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2017, 29, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Solbiati, M.; Muglia, R.; Goldberg, S.N.; Ierace, T.; Rotilio, A.; Passera, K.M.; Marre, I.; Solbiati, L. A novel software platform for volumetric assessment of ablation completeness. Int. J. Hyperth. 2019, 36, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Kaye, E.A.; Cornelis, F.H.; Petre, E.N.; Tyagi, N.; Shady, W.; Shi, W.; Zhang, Z.; Solomon, S.B.; Sofocleous, C.T.; Durack, J.C. Volumetric 3D assessment of ablation zones after thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases to improve prediction of local tumor progression. Eur. Radiol. 2018, 29, 2698–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Laimer, G.; Jaschke, N.; Schullian, P.; Putzer, D.; Eberle, G.; Solbiati, M.; Solbiati, L.; Goldberg, S.N.; Bale, R. Volumetric assessment of the periablational safety margin after thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases. Eur. Radiol. 2021, 31, 6489–64991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Are, C.; Gonen, M.; Zazzali, K.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Jarnagin, W.R.; Fong, Y.; Blumgart, L.H.; D’Angelica, M. The Impact of Margins on Outcome After Hepatic Resection for Colorectal Metastasis. Ann. Surg. 2007, 246, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kurilova, I.; Bendet, A.; Petre, E.N.; Boas, F.E.; Kaye, E.; Gonen, M.; Covey, A.; Brody, L.A.; Brown, K.T.; Kemeny, N.E.; et al. Factors Associated With Local Tumor Control and Complications After Thermal Ablation of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: A 15-year Retrospective Cohort Study. Clin. Color. Cancer 2020, 20, e82–e95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Han, K.; Kim, J.H.; Yang, S.G.; Park, S.H.; Choi, H.-K.; Chun, S.-Y.; Kim, P.N.; Park, J.; Lee, M. A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of Periprocedural Variables Affecting Local Tumor Progression after Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases. Radiology 2021, 298, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sotirchos, V.S.; Petrovic, L.M.; Gonen, M.; Klimstra, D.S.; Do, R.K.G.; Petre, E.N.; Garcia, A.R.; Barlas, A.; Erinjeri, J.P.; Brown, K.T.; et al. Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Biopsy of the Ablation Zone and Margins Can Be Used to Predict Oncologic Outcome. Radiology 2016, 280, 949–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Viganò, L.; Costa, G.; Cimino, M.; Procopio, F.; Donadon, M.; Del Fabbro, D.; Belghiti, J.; Kokudo, N.; Makuuchi, M.; Vauthey, J.-N.; et al. R1 Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Survey Questioning Surgeons about Its Incidence, Clinical Impact, and Management. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2018, 22, 1752–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Achterberg, F.B.; Mulder, B.G.S.; Meijer, R.P.J.; Bonsing, B.A.; Hartgrink, H.H.; Mieog, J.S.D.; Zlitni, A.; Park, S.-M.; Sarasqueta, A.F.; Vahrmeijer, A.L.; et al. Real-time surgical margin assessment using ICG-fluorescence during laparoscopic and robot-assisted resections of colorectal liver metastases. Ann. Transl. Med. 2020, 8, 1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Keil, S.; Bruners, P.; Schiffl, K.; Sedlmair, M.; Mühlenbruch, G.; Günther, R.W.; Das, M.; Mahnken, A.H. Radiofrequency Ablation of Liver Metastases—Software-Assisted Evaluation of the Ablation Zone in MDCT: Tumor-Free Follow-Up Versus Local Recurrent Disease. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2009, 33, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sotirchos, V.S.; Fujisawa, S.; Vakiani, E.; Solomon, S.B.; Manova-Todorova, K.O.; Sofocleous, C.T. Fluorescent Tissue Assessment of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Ablation Zone: A Potential Real-Time Biomarker of Complete Tumor Ablation. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 26, 1833–1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Saiura, A.; Yamamoto, J.; Hasegawa, K.; Koga, R.; Sakamoto, Y.; Hata, S.; Makuuchi, M.; Kokudo, N. Liver Resection for Multiple Colorectal Liver Metastases with Surgery Up-front Approach: Bi-institutional Analysis of 736 Consecutive Cases. World J. Surg. 2012, 36, 2171–2178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Viganò, L.; Pedicini, V.; Comito, T.; Carnaghi, C.; Costa, G.; Poretti, D.; Franzese, C.; Personeni, N.; Del Fabbro, D.; Rimassa, L.; et al. Aggressive and Multidisciplinary Local Approach to Iterative Recurrences of Colorectal Liver Metastases. World J. Surg. 2018, 42, 2651–2659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Viganò, L.; Ferrero, A.; Tesoriere, R.L.; Capussotti, L. Liver Surgery for Colorectal Metastases: Results after 10 Years of Follow-Up. Long-Term Survivors, Late Recurrences, and Prognostic Role of Morbidity. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008, 15, 2458–2464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Odisio, B.C.; Yamashita, S.; Huang, S.Y.; Kopetz, S.; Ahrar, K.; Mizuno, T.; Conrad, C.; Aloia, T.A.; Chun, Y.S.; Gupta, S.; et al. Impact of Prior Hepatectomy History on Local Tumor Progression after Percutaneous Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2018, 29, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Petrowsky, H.; Gonen, M.; Jarnagin, W.; Lorenz, M.; DeMatteo, R.; Heinrich, S.; Encke, A.; Blumgart, L.; Fong, Y. Second Liver Resections Are Safe and Effective Treatment for Recurrent Hepatic Metastases from Colorectal Cancer. Ann. Surg. 2002, 235, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. 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]
  57. Takamoto, T.; Hashimoto, T.; Miyata, A.; Shimada, K.; Maruyama, Y.; Makuuchi, M. Repeat Hepatectomy After Major Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2019, 24, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Dijkstra, M.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.; Timmer, F.; Geboers, B.; Schouten, E.; Opperman, J.; Scheffer, H.; Vries, J.; Swijnenburg, R.-J.; et al. Thermal Ablation Compared to Partial Hepatectomy for Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases: An Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) Based Study. Cancers 2021, 13, 2769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sofocleous, C.T.; Petre, E.N.; Gonen, M.; Brown, K.; Solomon, S.B.; Covey, A.M.; Alago, W.; Brody, L.A.; Thornton, R.H.; D’Angelica, M.; et al. CT-guided Radiofrequency Ablation as a Salvage Treatment of Colorectal Cancer Hepatic Metastases Developing after Hepatectomy. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2011, 22, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Dijkstra, M.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.; Geboers, B.; Timmer, F.; Schouten, E.; Scheffer, H.; de Vries, J.; Ket, J.; Versteeg, K.; et al. The Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Repeat Local Treatment of Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2021, 13, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Neal, C.P.; Nana, G.R.; Jones, M.; Cairns, V.; Ngu, W.; Isherwood, J.; Dennison, A.R.; Garcea, G. Repeat hepatectomy is independently associated with favorable long-term outcome in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Cancer Med. 2017, 6, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Neeff, H.P.; Drognitz, O.; Holzner, P.; Klock, A.; Bronsert, P.; Hopt, U.T.; Makowiec, F. Outcome after repeat resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2013, 28, 1135–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Pessaux, P.; Lermite, E.; Brehant, O.; Tuech, J.-J.; Lorimier, G.; Arnaud, J.-P. Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal liver metastases. J. Surg. Oncol. 2005, 93, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wicherts, D.A.; de Haas, R.J.; Salloum, C.; Andreani, P.; Pascal, G.; Sotirov, D.; Adam, R.; Castaing, D.; Azoulay, D. Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal metastases. BJS 2013, 100, 808–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Viganò, L.; Capussotti, L.; Lapointe, R.; Barroso, E.; Hubert, C.; Giuliante, F.; Ijzermans, J.N.M.; Mirza, D.F.; Elias, D.; Adam, R. Early Recurrence After Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases: Risk Factors, Prognosis, and Treatment. A LiverMetSurvey-Based Study of 6025 Patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 21, 1276–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Dijkstra, M.; Puijk, R.S.; Timmer, F.E.F.; Nota, I.M.; Opperman, J.; Bemd, B.V.D.; Geboers, B.; Ruarus, A.H.; Schouten, E.A.C.; et al. Thermal Ablation versus Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy to Treat Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comparative Analysis from the Prospective Amsterdam CORE Registry. Cancers 2021, 13, 4303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Meijerink, M.R.; Ruarus, A.H.; Vroomen, L.G.P.H.; Puijk, R.S.; Geboers, B.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Bemd, B.A.T.V.D.; Nielsen, K.; de Vries, J.J.J.; van Lienden, K.P.; et al. Irreversible Electroporation to Treat Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases (COLDFIRE-2): A Phase II, Two-Center, Single-Arm Clinical Trial. Radiology 2021, 299, 470–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Comprehensive Cancer Organisation the Netherlands (I.K.N.L.). National Evidence-Based Guideline. Colorectaalcarcinoom. 2014. Available online: http://oncoline.nl/ (accessed on 25 November 2020).
  70. Crocetti, L.; de Baere, T.; Lencioni, R. Quality Improvement Guidelines for Radiofrequency Ablation of Liver Tumours. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2009, 33, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Available online: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5x11.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2020).
  72. IBM Corp. IBM® SPSS® Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  73. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R for Windows Version 4.0.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  74. Adair, R.A.; Young, A.L.; Cockbain, A.J.; Malde, D.; Prasad, K.R.; Lodge, J.P.A.; Toogood, G.J. Repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2012, 99, 1278–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Brachet, D.; Lermite, E.; Rouquette, A.; Lorimier, G.; Hamy, A.; Arnaud, J.-P. Prognostic Factors of Survival in Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent Colorectal Metastases. Dis. Colon Rectum 2009, 52, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Hashimoto, M.; Kobayashi, T.; Ishiyama, K.; Ide, K.; Ohira, M.; Tahara, H.; Kuroda, S.; Hamaoka, M.; Iwako, H.; Okimoto, M.; et al. Efficacy of repeat hepatectomy for recurrence following curative hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 128 patients. Int. J. Surg. 2016, 36, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Matsuoka, H.; Morise, Z.; Tanaka, C.; Hayashi, T.; Ikeda, Y.; Maeda, K.; Masumori, K.; Koide, Y.; Katsuno, H.; Tanahashi, Y.; et al. Repeat hepatectomy with systemic chemotherapy might improve survival of recurrent liver metastasis from colorectal cancer—A retrospective observational study. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 17, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Imai, K.; Yamashita, Y.-I.; Miyamoto, Y.; Nakagawa, S.; Okabe, H.; Hashimoto, D.; Chikamoto, A.; Baba, H. The predictors and oncological outcomes of repeat surgery for recurrence after hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 23, 908–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Homayounfar, K.; Bleckmann, A.; Conradi, L.C.; Sprenger, T.; Lorf, T.; Niessner, M.; Sahlmann, C.O.; Meller, J.; Liersch, T.; Ghadimi, B.M. Metastatic recurrence after complete resection of colorectal liver metastases: Impact of surgery and chemotherapy on survival. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2013, 28, 1009–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Ishiguro, S.; Akasu, T.; Fujimoto, Y.; Yamamoto, J.; Sakamoto, Y.; Sano, T.; Shimada, K.; Kosuge, T.; Yamamoto, S.; Fujita, S.; et al. Second Hepatectomy for Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastasis: Analysis of Preoperative Prognostic Factors. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2006, 13, 1579–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Imai, K.; Castro-Benitez, C.; Allard, M.-A.; Vibert, E.; Cunha, A.S.; Cherqui, D.; Castaing, D.; Bismuth, H.; Baba, H.; Adam, R. Impact of Surgical Treatment for Recurrence After 2-Stage Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases, on Patient Outcome. Ann. Surg. 2019, 269, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kishi, Y.; Nara, S.; Esaki, M.; Shimada, K. Feasibility of “Watch-and-Wait” Management before Repeat Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Dig. Surg. 2018, 36, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. 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]
  84. Ayez, N.; van der Stok, E.; Grünhagen, D.; Rothbarth, J.; van Meerten, E.; Eggermont, A.; Verhoef, C. The use of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases: Clinical risk score as possible discriminator. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 41, 859–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Vigano, L.; Galvanin, J.; Poretti, D.; Del Fabbro, D.; Gentile, D.; Pedicini, V.; Solbiati, L.; Torzilli, G. Percutaneous ablation of post-surgical solitary early recurrence of colorectal liver metastases is an effective “test-of-time” approach. Updat. Surg. 2021, 73, 1349–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kooby, D.A. Impact of steatosis on perioperative outcome following hepatic resection. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2003, 7, 1034–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. 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]
  88. Wiering, B.; Oyen, W.J.G.; Adang, E.M.M.; van der Sijp, J.R.M.; Roumen, R.M.; de Jong, K.P.; Ruers, T.J.M.; Krabbe, P.F.M. Long-term global quality of life in patients treated for colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2010, 98, 565–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Van Cutsem, E.; Köhne, C.-H.; Láng, I.; Folprecht, G.; Nowacki, M.P.; Cascinu, S.; Shchepotin, I.; Maurel, J.; Cunningham, D.; Tejpar, S.; et al. Cetuximab Plus Irinotecan, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin As First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Updated Analysis of Overall Survival According to Tumor KRAS and BRAF Mutation Status. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 2011–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Vauthey, J.-N.; Zimmitti, G.; Kopetz, S.; Shindoh, J.; Chen, S.S.; Andreou, A.; Curley, S.A.; Aloia, T.A.; Maru, D.M. RAS Mutation Status Predicts Survival and Patterns of Recurrence in Patients Undergoing Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. 2013, 258, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Brudvik, K.W.; Kopetz, S.; Li, L.; Conrad, C.; Aloia, T.A.; Vauthey, J. Meta-analysis of KRAS mutations and survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2015, 102, 1175–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Zhang, Q.; Peng, J.; Ye, M.; Weng, W.; Tan, C.; Ni, S.; Huang, D.; Sheng, W.; Wang, L. KRAS Mutation Predicted More Mirometastases and Closer Resection Margins in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 27, 1164–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Brudvik, K.W.; Mise, Y.; Chung, M.H.; Chun, Y.S.; Kopetz, S.E.; Passot, G.; Conrad, C.; Maru, D.M.; Aloia, T.A.; Vauthey, J.-N.; et al. RAS Mutation Predicts Positive Resection Margins and Narrower Resection Margins in Patients Undergoing Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 23, 2635–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Odisio, B.C.; Yamashita, S.; Huang, S.Y.; Harmoush, S.; Kopetz, S.; Ahrar, K.; Chun, Y.S.; Conrad, C.; Aloia, T.A.; Gupta, S.; et al. Local tumour progression after percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases according to RAS mutation status. BJS 2017, 104, 760–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Shady, W.; Petre, E.N.; Vakiani, E.; Ziv, E.; Gonen, M.; Brown, K.T.; Kemeny, N.E.; Solomon, S.B.; Solit, D.B.; Sofocleous, C.T. Kras mutation is a marker of worse oncologic outcomes after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of colorectal liver metastases. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 66117–66127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Calandri, M.; Yamashita, S.; Gazzera, C.; Fonio, P.; Veltri, A.; Bustreo, S.; Sheth, R.A.; Yevich, S.M.; Vauthey, J.-N.; Odisio, B.C. Ablation of colorectal liver metastasis: Interaction of ablation margins and RAS mutation profiling on local tumour progression-free survival. Eur. Radiol. 2018, 28, 2727–2734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Yamashita, S.; Brudvik, K.W.; Kopetz, S.; Maru, D.; Clarke, C.N.; Passot, G.; Conrad, C.; Chun, Y.S.; Aloia, T.A.; Vauthey, J.-N. Embryonic Origin of Primary Colon Cancer Predicts Pathologic Response and Survival in Patients Undergoing Resection for Colon Cancer Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. 2018, 267, 514–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cancers 13 04997 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of included and excluded patients.
Figure 1. Flowchart of included and excluded patients.
Cancers 13 04997 g001
Cancers 13 04997 g002 550
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curves of local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) per tumor after upfront repeat local treatment (red) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by repeat local treatment (green). Numbers at risk (number of events) are per tumor. Overall comparison log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test, p = 0.300. Death without local tumor progression (LTP; competing risk) is censored.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curves of local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) per tumor after upfront repeat local treatment (red) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by repeat local treatment (green). Numbers at risk (number of events) are per tumor. Overall comparison log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test, p = 0.300. Death without local tumor progression (LTP; competing risk) is censored.
Cancers 13 04997 g002
Cancers 13 04997 g003 550
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier curves of distant progression-free survival (DPFS) per patient after upfront repeat local treatment (red) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by repeat local treatment (green). Numbers at risk (number of events) are per patient. Overall comparison log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test, p = 0.377. Death without distant progression (competing risk) is censored.
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier curves of distant progression-free survival (DPFS) per patient after upfront repeat local treatment (red) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by repeat local treatment (green). Numbers at risk (number of events) are per patient. Overall comparison log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test, p = 0.377. Death without distant progression (competing risk) is censored.
Cancers 13 04997 g003
Cancers 13 04997 g004 550
Figure 4. Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival (OS) after upfront repeat local treatment (red) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by repeat local treatment (green). Numbers at risk (number of events) are per patient. Overall comparison log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test, p = 0.834.
Figure 4. Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival (OS) after upfront repeat local treatment (red) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by repeat local treatment (green). Numbers at risk (number of events) are per patient. Overall comparison log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test, p = 0.834.
Cancers 13 04997 g004
Cancers 13 04997 g005 550
Figure 5. Univariable subgroup Cox regression analysis of upfront repeat local treatment versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by repeat local treatment associated with overall survival (OS). No = number, CI = confidence interval, ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists score, BMI = body mass index, * = insufficient subgroup size for each treatment group, NA = not available.
Figure 5. Univariable subgroup Cox regression analysis of upfront repeat local treatment versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by repeat local treatment associated with overall survival (OS). No = number, CI = confidence interval, ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists score, BMI = body mass index, * = insufficient subgroup size for each treatment group, NA = not available.
Cancers 13 04997 g005
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics at recurrent CRLM.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics at recurrent CRLM.
CharacteristicsTotalNeoadjuvant Chemotherapy GroupUpfront Repeat Local Treatment Groupp-Value
Number of patients 15232 (21.1)120 (78.9)
Patient characteristics
Gender Male115 (75.7)26 (81.3)89 (74.2)
Female37 (24.3)6 (18.8)31 (25.8)0.492 a
Age (years) * 65.4 (11.0)63.9 (10.8)65.7 (11.0)0.399 c
ASA physical status19 (5.9)1 (3.1)8 (6.7)
2105 (69.1)23 (71.9)82 (68.3)
338 (25.0)8 (25.0)30 (25.0)0.748 b
ComorbiditiesNone75 (49.3)17 (53.1)58 (48.3)
Minimal56 (36.8)11 (34.4)45 (37.5)
Major21 (13.8)4 (12.5)17 (14.2)0.889 b
BMI (kg/cm2) * 26.1 (4.1)25.4 (3.8)26.2 (4.2)0.306 c
Primary tumor locationRectum40 (26.3)9 (28.1)31 (25.8)
Colon left-sided74 (48.7)15 (46.9)59 (49.2)
Colon right-sided38 (25.0)8 (25.0)30 (25.0)0.962 b
Characteristics initial local treatment of CRLM
Initial CRLM diagnosisSynchronous80 (53.7)22 (68.8)58 (49.6)
Metachronous69 (46.3)10 (31.3)59 (50.4)0.071 a
Missing303
Number of tumors144 (28.9)8 (25.0)36 (30.0)
2–569 (45.4)13 (40.6)56 (46.7)
>539 (25.7)11 (34.4)28 (23.3)0.444 b
Size of largest metastasis (mm)Small (1–30)84 (62.7)15 (60.0)69 (63.3)
Intermediate (31–50)36 (29.1)6 (24.0)33 (30.3)
Large (>50)11 (8.2)4 (16.0)7 (6.4)0.275 b
Missing 18711
Extrahepatic disease at time of initial diagnosis CRLMNo125 (91.9)6 (83.9)99 (94.3)
Yes11 (8.1)5 (16.1)6 (5.7)0.125 a
Missing16115
Type of initial procedureResection50 (32.9)13 (40.6)37 (30.8)
Thermal ablation47 (30.9)5 (15.6)42 (35.0)
Resection and thermal ablation51 (33.6)14 (43.8)37 (30.8)
IRE 2 (1.3)0 (0.0)2 (1.7)
SBRT2 (1.3)0 (0.0)2 (1.7)0.190 b
Characteristics repeat local treatment of CRLM
Time between initial treatment and diagnosis recurrence (months) *6.8 (4.0–13.0)7.6 (3.9–14.7)6.8 (4.0–12.6)0.733 d
Number of tumors190 (59.2)13 (40.6)77 (64.2)
2–559 (38.8)16 (50.0)43 (35.8)
>53 (2.0)3 (9.4)0 (0.0)0.001 b
Size of largest metastasis (mm)Small (1–30)111 (84.7)25 (89.3)86 (83.5)
Intermediate (31–50)16 (15.5)2 (7.1)16 (15.5)
Large (>50)2 (1.5)1 (1.0)1 (3.6)0.334 b
Missing 21417
Repeat local treatment Resection37 (24.3)7 (21.9)30 (25.0)
Thermal ablation102 (67.1)22 (68.8)80 (66.7)
Combination 13 (8.6)3 (9.4)10 (8.3)0.928 b
Values are reported as number of patients (%), * = continuous variables reported as mean (standard deviation (SD)) or median (interquartile range (IQR)), a = Fisher’s exact test, b = Pearson chi-square, c = independent t-test, d = Mann–Whitney U test, ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists score, BMI = body mass index.
Table
Table 2. Treatment characteristics per patient of repeat local treatment.
Table 2. Treatment characteristics per patient of repeat local treatment.
CharacteristicsNeoadjuvant Chemotherapy Group
N = 32		Upfront Repeat Local Treatment Group
N = 120		p-Value
Type of repeat local treatmentThermal ablation22 (68.8)80 (66.7)0.928 a
Partial hepatectomy7 (21.9)30 (25.0)
Combination3 (9.4)10 (8.3)
ApproachOpen15 (46.9)44 (37.9)0.372 a
Laparoscopic0 (0.0)5 (4.3)
Percutaneous17 (53.1)67 (57.8)
Missing04
Values are reported as number of patients (%), a = Pearson chi-square.
Table
Table 3. Treatment characteristics per tumor of repeat local treatment.
Table 3. Treatment characteristics per tumor of repeat local treatment.
CharacteristicsNeoadjuvant Chemotherapy Group
N = 74		Upfront Repeat Local Treatment Group
N = 193 		p-Value
Type of repeat thermal ablationRFA <0.001 a
Le VeenTM7 (9.5)58 (30.4)
Cool-tipTM7 (9.5)5 (2.6)
Others1 (1.4)1 (0.5)
MWA
EmprintTM33 (44.6)61 (31.9)
Covidien EvidentTM3 (4.1)2 (1.0)
Others0 (0.0)14 (7.3)
Type of repeat resectionMinor (<3 segments)23 (31.1)48 (25.1)
Major (≥3 segments)0 (0.0)2 (1.0)
Missing02
Values are reported as number of tumors (%), RFA = radiofrequency ablation, MWA = microwave ablation, a = Pearson chi-square.
Table
Table 4. Chemotherapeutic characteristics per patient.
Table 4. Chemotherapeutic characteristics per patient.
CharacteristicsNeoadjuvant Chemotherapy Group
N = 32
Chemotherapeutic regimenCAPOX22 (73.3)
Capecitabine2 (6.7)
Irinotecan3 (10.0)
FOLFOX 1 (3.3)
CAPIRI1 (3.3)
FOLFIRI1 (3.3)
Additional monoclonal antibodiesBevacizumab21 (70.0)
Panitumumab1 (3.3)
Missing 2
Number of cycles1–619 (63.3)
>611 (36.7)
Missing 2
Values are reported as number of patients (%); CAPOX = capecitabine and oxaliplatin; FOLFOX = folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin; CAPIRI = capecitabine and irinotecan; FOLFIRI = folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan.
Table
Table 5. Periprocedural complications of repeat local treatment (CTCAE) [71].
Table 5. Periprocedural complications of repeat local treatment (CTCAE) [71].
GradeTotalNeoadjuvant Chemotherapy Group
N = 32		Upfront Repeat Local Treatment Group
N = 120		p-Value
None110 (79.7)24 (80.0)86 (79.6)0.843 a
Grade 18 (5.8)1 (3.3)7 (6.5)
Grade 28 (58)2 (6.7)6 (5.6)
Grade 310 (7.2)3 (10.0)7 (6.5)
Grade 42 (1.4)0 (0.0)2 (1.9)
Grade 5NRNRNR
Missing14212
Values are reported as number of patients (%), NR = none reported, a = Pearson chi-square.
Table
Table 6. Complications of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CTCAE) [71].
Table 6. Complications of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CTCAE) [71].
GradeNeoadjuvant Chemotherapy Group
N = 32
None16 (53.3)
Grade 1NR
Grade 29 (30.0)
Grade 35 (16.7)
Grade 4NR
Grade 5NR
Missing2
Values are reported as number of patients (%), NR = none reported.
Table
Table 7. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis to detect potential confounders associated with local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS). After removal of BMI and number of recurrent metastases and adjusting for the confounder time between initial treatment and diagnosis recurrence and initial CRLM diagnosis, corrected HR of repeat local treatment was 1.486 (95% CI, 0.594–3.714; p = 0.397).
Table 7. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis to detect potential confounders associated with local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS). After removal of BMI and number of recurrent metastases and adjusting for the confounder time between initial treatment and diagnosis recurrence and initial CRLM diagnosis, corrected HR of repeat local treatment was 1.486 (95% CI, 0.594–3.714; p = 0.397).
CharacteristicsUnivariable AnalysisMultivariable Analysis
HR (CI)p-ValueHR (CI)p-Value
Repeat local treatmentUpfront repeat local treatmentReference0.335Reference0.407
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy0.621 (0.236–1.635) 0.662 (0.249–1.756)
Patient-related factors
GenderMaleReference0.272
Female1.554 (0.708–3.414)
Age (years)0.998 (0.966–1.031)0.892
ASA physical status1Reference0.591
20.935 (0.220–3.978)
30.569 (0.110–2.933)
ComorbiditiesNoneReference0.446
Minimal1.500 (0.705–3.191)
Major0.731 (0.165–3.239)
BMI (kg/cm2)1.074 (0.992–1.163)0.0791.032 (0.952–1.118)0.448
Primary tumor locationRectumReference0.960
Colon left-sided0.886 (0.383–2.052)
Colon right-sided0.948 (0.361–2.494)
Factors regarding initial local treatment of CRLM
Initial CRLM diagnosisSynchronousReference0.004Reference0.022
Metachronous3.086 (1.424–6.688) 2.559 (1.148–5.705)
Number of tumors1Reference0.567
2–51.645 (0.592–4.572)
>51.736 (0.593–5.081)
Size of largest metastasis (mm)Small (1–-30)Reference0.289
Intermediate (31–50)0.370 (0.108–1.275)
Large (>50)*
Extrahepatic disease 1No Reference0.369
Yes0.400 (0.054–2.955)
Type of initial procedureResectionReference0.997
Thermal ablation0.949 (0.375–2.407)
Resection and thermal ablation1.124 (0.477–2.646)
IRE *
SBRT*
Factors regarding repeat local treatment of CRLM
Time between initial treatment and diagnosis recurrence (months)1.029 (1.009–1.048)0.0041.023 (1.004–1.043)0.018
Number of tumors1Reference0.027Reference0.278
2–50.359 (0.168–0.766) 0.544 (0.237–1.251)
>50.428 (0.056–3.273) 1.370 (0.128–14.679)
Size of metastasis (mm)Small (1–30)Reference0.242
Intermediate (31–50)2.580 (0.856–7.774)
Large (>50)*
Repeat local treatmentResectionReference0.982
Thermal ablation1.021 (0.426–2.449)
Combination 0.918 (0.268–3.144)
Margin size<5 mmReference0.513
>5 mm3.491 (0.082–148.0)
HR = hazard ratio, CI = 95% confidence interval, ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists score, BMI = body mass index, * = insufficient subgroup size for each treatment group, 1 = at time of initial diagnosis CRLM.
Table
Table 8. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis to detect potential confounders associated with distant progression-free survival (DPFS). The association between the two treatment groups and DPFS did not differ >10% in the corrected model. Therefore, age, initial CRLM diagnosis, initial number of CRLM, time between initial treatment and diagnosis recurrence, number of recurrent metastases, and size of largest recurrent metastasis were removed. HR of repeat local treatment was 0.798 (95% CI, 0.483–1.318; p = 0.378).
Table 8. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis to detect potential confounders associated with distant progression-free survival (DPFS). The association between the two treatment groups and DPFS did not differ >10% in the corrected model. Therefore, age, initial CRLM diagnosis, initial number of CRLM, time between initial treatment and diagnosis recurrence, number of recurrent metastases, and size of largest recurrent metastasis were removed. HR of repeat local treatment was 0.798 (95% CI, 0.483–1.318; p = 0.378).
CharacteristicsUnivariable AnalysisMultivariable Analysis
HR (CI)p-ValueHR (CI)p-Value
Repeat local treatmentUpfront repeat local treatmentReference0.378Reference0.503
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy0.798 (0.483–1.318) 0.822 (0.464–1.457)
Patient-related factors
GenderMaleReference0.904
Female1.027 (0.662–1.594)
Age (years)0.979 (0.961–0.998)0.0300.989 (0.968–1.010)0.290
ASA physical status1Reference0.691
21.293 (0.561–2.983)
31.457 (0.598–3.550)
ComorbiditiesNoneReference0.538
Minimal0.931 (0.613–1.413)
Major1.329 (0.721–2.450)
BMI (kg/cm2)0.969 (0.921–1.020)0.225
Primary tumor locationRectumReference0.777
Colon left-sided0.911 (0.573–1.447)
Colon right-sided1.078 (0.637–1.822)
Factors regarding initial local treatment of CRLM
Initial CRLM diagnosisSynchronousReference0.013Reference0.092
Metachronous0.600 (0.401–0.898) 0.663 (0.411–1.069)
Number of tumors1Reference0.083Reference0.891
2–51.114 (0.690–1.800) 1.144 (0.660–1.984)
>51.726 (1.019–2.923) 1.086 (0.567–2.081)
Size of largest metastasis (mm)Small (1–30)Reference0.330
Intermediate (31–50)0.723 (0.449–1.162)
Large (>50)0.689 (0.296–1.605)
Extrahepatic disease 1No Reference0.521
Yes 0.776 (0.357–1.684)
Type of initial procedureResectionReference0.613
Thermal ablation1.362 (0.838–2.214)
Resection and thermal ablation0.936 (0.575–1.524)
IRE 1.149 (0.275–4.805)
SBRT1.065 (0.255–4.450)
Factors regarding repeat local treatment of CRLM
Time between initial treatment and diagnosis recurrence (months)0.981 (0.963–0.998)0.0310.972 (0.952–0.993)0.011
Number of tumors1Reference0.027Reference0.101
2–51.538 (1.037–2.282) 1.320 (0.830–2.100)
>53.231 (0.998–10.455) 3.980 (1.047–15.122)
Size of largest metastasis (mm)Small (1–30)Reference0.006Reference 0.001
Intermediate (31–50)1.689 (0.963–2.964) 2.114 (1.182–3.781)
Large (>50)7.707 (1.823–32.580) 10.734 (2.385–48.308)
Repeat local treatmentResectionReference0.201
Thermal ablation1.140 (0.715–1.817)
Combination 1.901 (0.929–3.891)
HR = hazard ratio, CI = 95% confidence interval, ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists score, BMI = body mass index, 1 = at time of initial diagnosis CRLM.
Table
Table 9. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis to detect potential confounders associated with overall survival (OS). After removal of age and adjusting for the confounder comorbidities and primary tumor location, corrected HR of repeat local treatment was 0.839 (95% CI, 0.416–1.691; p = 0.624).
Table 9. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis to detect potential confounders associated with overall survival (OS). After removal of age and adjusting for the confounder comorbidities and primary tumor location, corrected HR of repeat local treatment was 0.839 (95% CI, 0.416–1.691; p = 0.624).
CharacteristicsUnivariable AnalysisMultivariable Analysis
HR (CI)p-ValueHR (CI)p-Value
Repeat local treatmentUpfront repeat local treatmentReference0.834Reference0.624
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy0.928 (0.463–1.861) 0.839 (0.416–1.691)
Patient-related factors
GenderMaleReference0.519
Female0.801 (0.409–1.570)
Age (years)1.027 (0.996–1.060)0.0921.021 (0.987–1.057)0.222
ASA physical status1Reference0.290
23.155 (0.752–13.235)
33.046 (0.673–13.787)
ComorbiditiesNoneReference0.019Reference0.010
Minimal1.585 (0.850–2.955) 1.776 (0.945–3.339)
Major3.165 (1.410–7.104) 3.489 (1.536–7.923)
BMI (kg/cm2)0.977 (0.909–1.049)0.518
Primary tumor locationRectumReference0.054Reference0.023
Colon left-sided0.757 (0.383–1.494) 0.735 (0.369–1.464)
Colon right-sided1.762 (0.835–3.718) 1.958 (0.921–4.160)
Factors regarding initial local treatment of CRLM
Initial CRLM diagnosisSynchronousReference0.634
Metachronous0.868 (0.486–1.553)
Number of tumors1Reference0.754
2–51.022 (0.532–1.963)
>50.784 (0.360–1.710)
Size of largest metastasis (mm)Small (1–30)Reference0.503
Intermediate (31–50)0.915 (0.477–1.755)
Large (>50)0.485 (0.144–1.629)
Extrahepatic disease 1No Reference0.219
Yes 0.287 (0.039–2.099)
Type of initial procedureResectionReference0.456
Thermal ablation1.722 (0.861–3.443)
Resection and thermal ablation0.955 (0.459–1.987)
IRE 1.348 (0.176–10.316)
SBRT*
Factors regarding repeat local treatment of CRLM
Time between initial treatment and diagnosis recurrence (months)1.003 (0.982–1.025)0.785
Number of tumors1Reference0.564
2–51.367 (0.771–2.424)
>5*
Size of largest metastasis (mm)Small (1–30)Reference0.130
Intermediate (31–50)2.092 (0.984–4.449)
Large (>50)1.874 (0.420–8.371)
Repeat localtreatmentResectionReference0.685
Thermal ablation1.041 (0.554–1.956)
Combination 0.614 (0.176–2.145)
HR = hazard ratio, CI = 95% confidence interval, ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists score, BMI = body mass index, * = insufficient subgroup size for each treatment group, 1 = at time of initial diagnosis CRLM.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dijkstra, M.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.S.; Timmer, F.E.F.; Geboers, B.; Schouten, E.A.C.; Opperman, J.; Scheffer, H.J.; de Vries, J.J.J.; Versteeg, K.S.; et al. Repeat Local Treatment of Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases, the Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: An Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) Based Study. Cancers 2021, 13, 4997. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13194997

AMA Style

Dijkstra M, Nieuwenhuizen S, Puijk RS, Timmer FEF, Geboers B, Schouten EAC, Opperman J, Scheffer HJ, de Vries JJJ, Versteeg KS, et al. Repeat Local Treatment of Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases, the Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: An Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) Based Study. Cancers. 2021; 13(19):4997. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13194997

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dijkstra, Madelon, Sanne Nieuwenhuizen, Robbert S. Puijk, Florentine E. F. Timmer, Bart Geboers, Evelien A. C. Schouten, Jip Opperman, Hester J. Scheffer, Jan J. J. de Vries, Kathelijn S. Versteeg, and et al. 2021. "Repeat Local Treatment of Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases, the Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: An Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) Based Study" Cancers 13, no. 19: 4997. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13194997

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