Clinical outcomes for patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer: Arguing the case for specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary assessment

Abstract In patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer, hepatic resection can offer a significant survival benefit over systemic therapy alone. Specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary meetings are currently believed to provide the best forum to discuss the management for these patie...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of surgical oncology 2016-09, Vol.42 (9), p.1331-1336
Hauptverfasser: Thillai, Kiruthikah, MBBS MRCP Bsc, Repana, Dimitra, MBBS, Korantzis, Ippokratis, MBBS, Kane, Pauline, MBBS MRCP FRCR, Prachalias, Andreas, MBBS, MD, Ross, Paul, MBBS MRCP PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1336
container_issue 9
container_start_page 1331
container_title European journal of surgical oncology
container_volume 42
creator Thillai, Kiruthikah, MBBS MRCP Bsc
Repana, Dimitra, MBBS
Korantzis, Ippokratis, MBBS
Kane, Pauline, MBBS MRCP FRCR
Prachalias, Andreas, MBBS, MD
Ross, Paul, MBBS MRCP PhD
description Abstract In patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer, hepatic resection can offer a significant survival benefit over systemic therapy alone. Specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary meetings are currently believed to provide the best forum to discuss the management for these patients. A retrospective analysis was undertaken of patients diagnosed with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer over 6 months within a cancer network in the United Kingdom. In addition, patients who were diagnosed but not referred to the hepatobiliary meeting were discussed within a virtual multi-disciplinary setting. Contributors were blinded and proposed management recorded. 159 newly diagnosed patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer were identified. 68 (43%) were referred at initial diagnosis and 38 (24%) referred following systemic treatment. 35 (51%) who were discussed at baseline underwent a subsequent hepatectomy or radio frequency ablation, as did 18 (47%) patients referred after chemotherapy. Of the remaining 53 (33%) patients not referred, imaging was available for 31 (58%). Decisions regarding potential liver-directed therapy were discussed within a multi-disciplinary setting. 13 (41.9%) were identified as resectable or potentially resectable and 11 (35.5%) may have been suitable for a clinical trial. In reality, none of these 31 patients (100%) underwent surgery or ablation. Whilst the majority of patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer were referred appropriately, this study demonstrates that a significant number with potentially resectable disease are not being discussed at specialist meetings. A review of all diagnosed cases would ensure that an increased number of patients are offered hepatic resection or ablation.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.031
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1814645021</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S074879831630049X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1814645021</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-a4d3344a4d41c4f0232c913adb107c826dd9257bbb4f038d72eee25da53cd7fe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UsuKFTEQbURxrqM_4EKydNPXvPolIgwXXzDgQgV3IZ1Uz02b7rSp9Mj8il9r2nt14UIoqFA556RSp4riKaN7Rln9YtzDiGHP83lPRQ52r9ixSvCSs6q5X-xoI9uy6VpxUTxCHCmlnWi6h8UFb1gja0p3xc-Dd7Mz2pOwJhMmQDKESBadHMwJyQ-XjsS7W4ild5NLYMkESWPKAENM8CGCSZlu9GwgviRX8WZ18w1JR8g1hN9yuIBx2jtM5AhZO_TOOx3vyLT65KxD45bcx1bRiIA45ccfFw8G7RGenPNl8eXtm8-H9-X1x3cfDlfXpZFVlUotrRBS5iSZkQPlgpuOCW17RhvT8trajldN3_f5UrS24QDAK6srYWwzgLgsnp90lxi-r4BJTbkh8F7PEFZUrGWylhXlLEP5CWpiQIwwqCW6KbetGFWbJ2pUmydq80RRkWMjPTvrr_0E9i_ljwkZ8OoEgPzLWwdR5XlAHqd123CVDe7_-q__oZuzp9_gDnAMa5zz_BRTyBVVn7at2JaC1YJS2X0VvwCtGbeW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1814645021</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical outcomes for patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer: Arguing the case for specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary assessment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Thillai, Kiruthikah, MBBS MRCP Bsc ; Repana, Dimitra, MBBS ; Korantzis, Ippokratis, MBBS ; Kane, Pauline, MBBS MRCP FRCR ; Prachalias, Andreas, MBBS, MD ; Ross, Paul, MBBS MRCP PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Thillai, Kiruthikah, MBBS MRCP Bsc ; Repana, Dimitra, MBBS ; Korantzis, Ippokratis, MBBS ; Kane, Pauline, MBBS MRCP FRCR ; Prachalias, Andreas, MBBS, MD ; Ross, Paul, MBBS MRCP PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract In patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer, hepatic resection can offer a significant survival benefit over systemic therapy alone. Specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary meetings are currently believed to provide the best forum to discuss the management for these patients. A retrospective analysis was undertaken of patients diagnosed with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer over 6 months within a cancer network in the United Kingdom. In addition, patients who were diagnosed but not referred to the hepatobiliary meeting were discussed within a virtual multi-disciplinary setting. Contributors were blinded and proposed management recorded. 159 newly diagnosed patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer were identified. 68 (43%) were referred at initial diagnosis and 38 (24%) referred following systemic treatment. 35 (51%) who were discussed at baseline underwent a subsequent hepatectomy or radio frequency ablation, as did 18 (47%) patients referred after chemotherapy. Of the remaining 53 (33%) patients not referred, imaging was available for 31 (58%). Decisions regarding potential liver-directed therapy were discussed within a multi-disciplinary setting. 13 (41.9%) were identified as resectable or potentially resectable and 11 (35.5%) may have been suitable for a clinical trial. In reality, none of these 31 patients (100%) underwent surgery or ablation. Whilst the majority of patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer were referred appropriately, this study demonstrates that a significant number with potentially resectable disease are not being discussed at specialist meetings. A review of all diagnosed cases would ensure that an increased number of patients are offered hepatic resection or ablation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0748-7983</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-2157</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.031</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27174600</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Catheter Ablation - methods ; Clinical Decision-Making ; Colorectal cancer ; Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology ; Female ; Gastroenterologists ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; Hepatectomy ; Hepatectomy - methods ; Hepatobiliary ; Humans ; Liver metastases ; Liver Neoplasms - secondary ; Liver Neoplasms - surgery ; Male ; Metastasectomy - methods ; Middle Aged ; Multi-disciplinary meeting ; Oncologists ; Patient Care Team - organization &amp; administration ; Radiologists ; Referral and Consultation ; Retrospective Studies ; Specialization ; Surgeons ; Surgery ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>European journal of surgical oncology, 2016-09, Vol.42 (9), p.1331-1336</ispartof><rights>2016 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-a4d3344a4d41c4f0232c913adb107c826dd9257bbb4f038d72eee25da53cd7fe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-a4d3344a4d41c4f0232c913adb107c826dd9257bbb4f038d72eee25da53cd7fe3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.031$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27174600$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thillai, Kiruthikah, MBBS MRCP Bsc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Repana, Dimitra, MBBS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Korantzis, Ippokratis, MBBS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kane, Pauline, MBBS MRCP FRCR</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prachalias, Andreas, MBBS, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ross, Paul, MBBS MRCP PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical outcomes for patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer: Arguing the case for specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary assessment</title><title>European journal of surgical oncology</title><addtitle>Eur J Surg Oncol</addtitle><description>Abstract In patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer, hepatic resection can offer a significant survival benefit over systemic therapy alone. Specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary meetings are currently believed to provide the best forum to discuss the management for these patients. A retrospective analysis was undertaken of patients diagnosed with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer over 6 months within a cancer network in the United Kingdom. In addition, patients who were diagnosed but not referred to the hepatobiliary meeting were discussed within a virtual multi-disciplinary setting. Contributors were blinded and proposed management recorded. 159 newly diagnosed patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer were identified. 68 (43%) were referred at initial diagnosis and 38 (24%) referred following systemic treatment. 35 (51%) who were discussed at baseline underwent a subsequent hepatectomy or radio frequency ablation, as did 18 (47%) patients referred after chemotherapy. Of the remaining 53 (33%) patients not referred, imaging was available for 31 (58%). Decisions regarding potential liver-directed therapy were discussed within a multi-disciplinary setting. 13 (41.9%) were identified as resectable or potentially resectable and 11 (35.5%) may have been suitable for a clinical trial. In reality, none of these 31 patients (100%) underwent surgery or ablation. Whilst the majority of patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer were referred appropriately, this study demonstrates that a significant number with potentially resectable disease are not being discussed at specialist meetings. A review of all diagnosed cases would ensure that an increased number of patients are offered hepatic resection or ablation.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Catheter Ablation - methods</subject><subject>Clinical Decision-Making</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterologists</subject><subject>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</subject><subject>Hepatectomy</subject><subject>Hepatectomy - methods</subject><subject>Hepatobiliary</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Liver metastases</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - secondary</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Metastasectomy - methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Multi-disciplinary meeting</subject><subject>Oncologists</subject><subject>Patient Care Team - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Radiologists</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Specialization</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0748-7983</issn><issn>1532-2157</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UsuKFTEQbURxrqM_4EKydNPXvPolIgwXXzDgQgV3IZ1Uz02b7rSp9Mj8il9r2nt14UIoqFA556RSp4riKaN7Rln9YtzDiGHP83lPRQ52r9ixSvCSs6q5X-xoI9uy6VpxUTxCHCmlnWi6h8UFb1gja0p3xc-Dd7Mz2pOwJhMmQDKESBadHMwJyQ-XjsS7W4ild5NLYMkESWPKAENM8CGCSZlu9GwgviRX8WZ18w1JR8g1hN9yuIBx2jtM5AhZO_TOOx3vyLT65KxD45bcx1bRiIA45ccfFw8G7RGenPNl8eXtm8-H9-X1x3cfDlfXpZFVlUotrRBS5iSZkQPlgpuOCW17RhvT8trajldN3_f5UrS24QDAK6srYWwzgLgsnp90lxi-r4BJTbkh8F7PEFZUrGWylhXlLEP5CWpiQIwwqCW6KbetGFWbJ2pUmydq80RRkWMjPTvrr_0E9i_ljwkZ8OoEgPzLWwdR5XlAHqd123CVDe7_-q__oZuzp9_gDnAMa5zz_BRTyBVVn7at2JaC1YJS2X0VvwCtGbeW</recordid><startdate>20160901</startdate><enddate>20160901</enddate><creator>Thillai, Kiruthikah, MBBS MRCP Bsc</creator><creator>Repana, Dimitra, MBBS</creator><creator>Korantzis, Ippokratis, MBBS</creator><creator>Kane, Pauline, MBBS MRCP FRCR</creator><creator>Prachalias, Andreas, MBBS, MD</creator><creator>Ross, Paul, MBBS MRCP PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160901</creationdate><title>Clinical outcomes for patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer: Arguing the case for specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary assessment</title><author>Thillai, Kiruthikah, MBBS MRCP Bsc ; Repana, Dimitra, MBBS ; Korantzis, Ippokratis, MBBS ; Kane, Pauline, MBBS MRCP FRCR ; Prachalias, Andreas, MBBS, MD ; Ross, Paul, MBBS MRCP PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-a4d3344a4d41c4f0232c913adb107c826dd9257bbb4f038d72eee25da53cd7fe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Catheter Ablation - methods</topic><topic>Clinical Decision-Making</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterologists</topic><topic>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</topic><topic>Hepatectomy</topic><topic>Hepatectomy - methods</topic><topic>Hepatobiliary</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Liver metastases</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - secondary</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Metastasectomy - methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Multi-disciplinary meeting</topic><topic>Oncologists</topic><topic>Patient Care Team - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Radiologists</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Specialization</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thillai, Kiruthikah, MBBS MRCP Bsc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Repana, Dimitra, MBBS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Korantzis, Ippokratis, MBBS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kane, Pauline, MBBS MRCP FRCR</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prachalias, Andreas, MBBS, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ross, Paul, MBBS MRCP PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of surgical oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thillai, Kiruthikah, MBBS MRCP Bsc</au><au>Repana, Dimitra, MBBS</au><au>Korantzis, Ippokratis, MBBS</au><au>Kane, Pauline, MBBS MRCP FRCR</au><au>Prachalias, Andreas, MBBS, MD</au><au>Ross, Paul, MBBS MRCP PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical outcomes for patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer: Arguing the case for specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary assessment</atitle><jtitle>European journal of surgical oncology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Surg Oncol</addtitle><date>2016-09-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1331</spage><epage>1336</epage><pages>1331-1336</pages><issn>0748-7983</issn><eissn>1532-2157</eissn><abstract>Abstract In patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer, hepatic resection can offer a significant survival benefit over systemic therapy alone. Specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary meetings are currently believed to provide the best forum to discuss the management for these patients. A retrospective analysis was undertaken of patients diagnosed with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer over 6 months within a cancer network in the United Kingdom. In addition, patients who were diagnosed but not referred to the hepatobiliary meeting were discussed within a virtual multi-disciplinary setting. Contributors were blinded and proposed management recorded. 159 newly diagnosed patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer were identified. 68 (43%) were referred at initial diagnosis and 38 (24%) referred following systemic treatment. 35 (51%) who were discussed at baseline underwent a subsequent hepatectomy or radio frequency ablation, as did 18 (47%) patients referred after chemotherapy. Of the remaining 53 (33%) patients not referred, imaging was available for 31 (58%). Decisions regarding potential liver-directed therapy were discussed within a multi-disciplinary setting. 13 (41.9%) were identified as resectable or potentially resectable and 11 (35.5%) may have been suitable for a clinical trial. In reality, none of these 31 patients (100%) underwent surgery or ablation. Whilst the majority of patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer were referred appropriately, this study demonstrates that a significant number with potentially resectable disease are not being discussed at specialist meetings. A review of all diagnosed cases would ensure that an increased number of patients are offered hepatic resection or ablation.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>27174600</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.031</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0748-7983
ispartof European journal of surgical oncology, 2016-09, Vol.42 (9), p.1331-1336
issn 0748-7983
1532-2157
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1814645021
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Catheter Ablation - methods
Clinical Decision-Making
Colorectal cancer
Colorectal Neoplasms - pathology
Female
Gastroenterologists
Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine
Hepatectomy
Hepatectomy - methods
Hepatobiliary
Humans
Liver metastases
Liver Neoplasms - secondary
Liver Neoplasms - surgery
Male
Metastasectomy - methods
Middle Aged
Multi-disciplinary meeting
Oncologists
Patient Care Team - organization & administration
Radiologists
Referral and Consultation
Retrospective Studies
Specialization
Surgeons
Surgery
United Kingdom
title Clinical outcomes for patients with liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer: Arguing the case for specialist hepatobiliary multidisciplinary assessment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T20%3A23%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20outcomes%20for%20patients%20with%20liver-limited%20metastatic%20colorectal%20cancer:%20Arguing%20the%20case%20for%20specialist%20hepatobiliary%20multidisciplinary%20assessment&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20surgical%20oncology&rft.au=Thillai,%20Kiruthikah,%20MBBS%20MRCP%20Bsc&rft.date=2016-09-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1331&rft.epage=1336&rft.pages=1331-1336&rft.issn=0748-7983&rft.eissn=1532-2157&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.031&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1814645021%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1814645021&rft_id=info:pmid/27174600&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S074879831630049X&rfr_iscdi=true