The Oncologist, Vol. 12, No. 7, 825-839, July 2007; doi:10.1634/theoncologist.12-7-825 © 2007 AlphaMed Press
Presurgical Chemotherapy in Patients Being Considered for Liver ResectionMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA Key Words. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy • Liver resection • Hepatotoxicity from chemotherapy Correspondence: Nancy Kemeny, M.D., Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, 1275 York Avenue, Suite H916, New York, New York 10021, USA. Telephone: 212-639-8068; Fax: 212-794-7186 Received February 2, 2007; accepted for publication April 13, 2007.
Access and take the CME test online and receive 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM at CME.TheOncologist.com
The liver is a frequent site of metastatic disease for colorectal cancer patients. Approximately 15% of patients have liver metastases at diagnosis and another 50% develop metastatic disease to the liver over the course of their disease. Advances in systemic chemotherapy and surgical techniques for hepatic resection have led to longer survival times for these patients. There is no doubt that unresectable patients benefit from systemic chemotherapy. For patients who have resectable disease, the timing of chemotherapy is still not clear. This review addresses the pros and cons of presurgical chemotherapy. The benefits of preoperative chemotherapy include decreasing tumor size, controlling micrometastatic disease, assessing activity of chemotherapy, improving chemotherapy tolerance, and perhaps allowing some prediction of the success of liver resection. The risks for presurgical chemotherapy include liver toxicity, the risk for progression or growth of new sites, secondary splenomegaly, selection of resistant clones, and the possibility of leaving behind active tumor that is no longer seen because of a complete radiographic response. The challenge for the future is to develop a multidisciplinary team approach that can design the best treatment plan for patients with liver metastases. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.
There will be approximately 130,000 new cases of colon cancer in the U.S. in 2007. Fifteen percent of these patients will have liver metastases at diagnosis, and another 50% will develop liver metastases during the course of their disease [1]. With advances in adjuvant therapy after primary colon resection, there is hope that the number of cases with metastatic disease will decrease [2]. For those who develop metastatic disease, there are new chemotherapy agents (irinotecan [3] and oxaliplatin [4, 5]) and new targeted agents (cetuximab [6] and bevacizumab [7]) that have improved response rates and survival times. Unfortunately, even with these new agents, the 2-year survival rate remains about 40% for patients with metastatic disease. Therefore, the development of other treatment modalities is important. Surgeons have demonstrated that resection of liver metastases increases survival [1, 8]. Several reports document a 30% 5-year survival rate for patients who undergo curative resection of their liver metastases [1, 8]. Although there are no randomized studies of surgery versus no surgery, there are natural history studies of patients who had resectable disease and did not undergo resection. In a review by Scheele et al. [9], of 902 patients with unresected liver metastases, only 21 patients survived 3 years, and none were alive at 5 years. Sixty-two patients had resectable disease but were not resected, and none were alive at 5 years. Those who were resected had a 5-year survival rate of 40%. Unfortunately, only 10%–25% of patients with liver metastases are candidates for liver resection. New effective chemotherapeutic agents have increased response rates and also the possibility of resection. In 1996, Bismuth et al. [10] reported that patients who were initially unresectable could be treated with systemic chemotherapy, and if a good response was obtained, resection was possible in 16% (53 of 330 patients). These patients had a survival duration similar to those who were initially resectable. Thus, in patients who are clearly unresectable, few would dispute the utility of chemotherapy. However, in patients who are initially resectable, the benefit of preoperative chemotherapy is uncertain. This review covers some of the advantages and disadvantages of neoadjuvant therapy.
In the early history of surgery for liver metastases, it was felt that patients with more than three metastatic liver lesions or bilobar disease were not appropriate for liver resection. However, newer data have demonstrated that even patients with poor prognostic characteristics can survive 5 years after curative liver resection [11–13]. Trials looking for prognostic indicators have devised a variety of clinical risk scores. A French review [12] of 1,568 patients found that age, number of metastases, size of the largest metastasis, carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) level, primary tumor stage, disease-free interval, and positive resection margins were all significant prognostic factors. Giving one point to each of these factors, they divided patients into three risk groups, with corresponding 2-year survival rates of 79%, 60%, and 43% for groups with scores of 0–2, 3–4, and 5–7, respectively. At Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), a multivariate analysis of many factors found that the size of the tumor (>5 cm), disease-free interval (<12 months), number of tumors (>1), positive lymph nodes from the primary, and preoperative CEA level >200 ng/ml were the most significant indicators of poor prognosis [11]. If one point is assigned for each of these factors, a score can be obtained that correlates with survival. Thus, a clinical risk score (CRS) of 0, 1–2, 3, or 4–5 predicted 5-year survival rates of 60%, 42%, 20%, and 18%, respectively. While poor characteristics definitely decrease survival, survival was still better than in those without resection, who rarely survive 5 years. An international group (LiverMetSurvey) looking at 2,122 patients undergoing liver resection, found overall 5- and 10-year survival rates of 42% and 26%, respectively, and showed that patients with greater or less than three metastases had 5-year survival rates of 48% and 24%, respectively (p = .001) [13]. In none of these series do the authors suggest that surgery should not be done in the patients with poor prognostic characteristics. A computer program was developed to aid in selecting patients for resection (OncoSurge model) [14]. A panel of 16 experts decided that absolute contraindications for resection were extrahepatic disease, >70% liver involvement, liver failure, and/or being surgically unfit. Other factors such as age, primary tumor stage, and time to the development of metastases were not contraindications for resection. Today, even extrahepatic disease is not a clear indicator of unresectable disease [15]. There are now reports of resecting liver metastases in patients with positive lymph nodes [16] and small lung or ovarian metastases [15]. In a recent report, the 5-year survival rate was 28% for patients who had extrahepatic disease resected as well, with the number of metastases being a stronger indication of progression than location of disease [15]. With recent advances in surgery, more patients are being considered for resection [17]. One preoperative technique involves portal vein embolization, to remove the blood supply to the affected liver and thus induce hypertrophy of the nondiseased portion of the liver, allowing for more radical liver resections [18]. Better vascular clamping techniques [19], controlled anatomic resection [20], and the use of radiofrequency ablation [21] to small lesions of the remaining liver also expand the options for liver resection. The definition of resectable disease varies greatly. A larger consensus is needed to clearly define what is unresectable disease.
For patients who do not have resectable disease, initial therapy, often called neoadjuvant therapy, may be a way to reduce tumor size and facilitate resection. Early retrospective studies from France [10, 22] were updated in a report of 1,439 patients with colorectal cancer managed from 1988–1999, where 1,104 patients were considered to have initially unresectable disease. After receiving chemotherapy (70% received 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]), 12.5% became resectable, with 5-year survival and disease-free survival rates in the resected patients of 33% and 22%, respectively, with a median follow-up time of 48.7 months [23]. Eighty percent had had a tumor recurrence, of which 71% recurred in the liver. Four preoperative factors were associated with shorter survival times: (a) rectal primary, (b) three or more metastases, (c) tumor size >10 cm, and (d) cancer antigen (CA)19–9 level >100 u/l [23]. The mean adjusted 5-year survival rate with zero, one, two, three, or four of the above factors was 59%, 30%, 7%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. Recent trials have prospectively evaluated neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Comparisons are somewhat difficult because of diverse reasons for patient unresectability. Some include the number of lesions or bilobar disease, while others look at technical reasons for why patients are unresectable, such as involvement of all three hepatic veins, both portal veins, or the retrohepatic vena cava, or that a resection would leave less than two hepatic segments or leave inadequate hepatic reserve. Many of these trials are listed in Table 1. In the trial by Pozzo et al. [24], patients were considered unresectable if they had six metastases with three per lobe; one lesion >5 cm if six metastases were present; or continuity with two hepatic veins, the inferior vena cava, or the liver hilum. The response rate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 47.5%, and 13 patients (32.5%) went on to resection. Although further systemic chemotherapy was given, the median disease-free interval was 14.3 months. In the Mayo Clinic trial [25], unresectability was defined as (a) involvement of three major hepatic veins, the portal vein bifurcation, or the retrohepatic vena cava; (b) involvement of the main right or left portal vein and the main hepatic vein of the opposite lobe; (c) disease requiring more than a right or left trisegmentectomy; and (d) six or more metastatic lesions distributed diffusely to both lobes of the liver. Twenty-five patients (60%) had a tumor reduction, and 17 (40%) underwent surgery. Retrospective review of these data demonstrated that 10% were actually resectable prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. There is no description of which patients became resectable, that is, patients with six or more lesions or patients with central lesions. With a median follow-up of 22 months, 11 patients have had recurrence, mostly in the liver. In the study by Ho et al. [26] of liver resection after 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI), 40 patients were treated, 55% had a response, and four patients underwent liver resection. However, of these four patients, one had stable disease, again suggesting that resection could have been possible without the preoperative chemotherapy in some patients.
In order to increase resectability, a combination of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) has been attempted. A randomized study of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and 5-FU/LV versus FOLFIRI in patients who were unresectable and had no prior chemotherapy had as its secondary endpoint the ability to perform surgical resection. There was a 15% resection rate with the irinotecan/oxaliplatin/5-FU/LV regimen and a 6% resection rate with FOLFIRI [27]. If patients with just liver metastases only were evaluated, the resection rates were 36% and 12%, respectively. Chronomodulation of FOLFOX versus standard FOLFOX did not increase resectability [28]. In the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 05963 study, including 554 patients, 50 were resectable in each arm. However, we do not know yet whether the chronomodulation may have decreased hepatic toxicity. The use of targeted agents may increase response rates and resectability. Rougier et al. [29] treated 23 patients with cetuximab and FOLFIRI, and seven (30%) became resectable. Another approach to maximize response in the liver is to use hepatic arterial infusion (HAI), because hepatic tumors are perfused by the hepatic artery [30]. Because floxuridine (FUDR) has an extraction rate of 94%–99% during the first pass [31], it is an ideal drug to use in treating liver metastases, and HAI may be combined with almost full doses of systemic therapy. Even in previously treated patients, high response rates can be achieved with the use of HAI therapy coupled with systemic therapy. A trial using HAI FUDR and dexamethasone with systemic irinotecan produced a 73% response rate in 38 patients (all previously treated), with responses in 13 of 15 patients who had received previous irinotecan [32]. Another study using HAI FUDR/dexamethasone with systemic oxaliplatin produced an 88% response rate in 36 patients (89% of whom were previously treated with systemic chemotherapy) [33]. In an updated analysis, 44 patients with clearly unresectable liver metastases were treated with combined HAI FUDR/dexamethasone and systemic oxaliplatin/irinotecan, and 35% were able to undergo liver resection after treatment (personal observation). Clavien et al. [34] treated 23 previously treated patients with HAI FUDR plus bolus cisplatin and doxorubicin and achieved a 23% resection rate. The main toxicity from HAI FUDR is to the bile ducts rather than the liver parenchyma. Bile ducts, as well as liver metastases, are perfused by the hepatic artery, thus the main toxicity of HAI is biliary, which, when severe, is known as sclerosing cholangitis [35]. The toxicity usually occurs after multiple treatments. Therefore, if a response occurs rapidly, biliary toxicity should be less of an issue. In a study comparing the time needed to achieve a maximum response with HAI plus systemic therapy versus systemic therapy alone, the mean tumor shrinkage after 2 months of treatment was 60% with HAI plus systemic therapy, and 20% with systemic therapy alone. Thus, conversion to resectability after therapy may occur more quickly with HAI therapy [36]. More studies are needed to define how best to decrease liver metastases and enable resection.
The question of whether liver metastases can safely be resected at the time of resection of the primary colorectal carcinoma is still uncertain. Small metastases seen at the time of laparotomy for the primary lesion can easily be resected. When patients are evaluated for their primary and are found to have a large burden of metastatic disease, a question may be whether a simultaneous resection of the primary tumor and the metastases should be done, or whether preoperative chemotherapy should be offered. Bolton and Fuhrman [37] reported a 12% operative mortality rate with simultaneous surgeries that increased to 24% if the surgery included a major liver resection. Nordlinger et al. [12] reported a 7% mortality rate for simultaneous resections compared with 2% for staged resections (p = .01). Tanaka et al. [38], Martin et al. [39], and Weber et al. [40], on the other hand, reported that operative mortality and morbidity were comparable whether staged or simultaneous procedures were done. Tanaka et al. [38] reported that the resected liver volume was the only factor associated with postoperative complications of simultaneous colorectal and liver resection. It is the practice in many institutions to do a simultaneous resection with right colon primaries or when single synchronous metastases are found in the liver, and staged resections for rectal primaries or for patients with multiple liver metastases [41].
The following sections discuss the pros and cons of neoadjuvant therapy for patients who are resectable (Table 2).
Pros Decrease Tumor Size
Control Micrometastatic Disease In another retrospective review at MSKCC, preoperative chemotherapy did not improve survival. In a review of 230 patients who received HAI plus systemic therapy after liver resection [42], the median survival times in patients who did and did not receive preoperative (neoadjuvant) therapy were 63 and 115 months, respectively (p = .26). The group who received neoadjuvant therapy had a higher CRS and a greater number of metastases, which may explain the longer survival in those without preoperative chemotherapy. In order to determine if neoadjuvant therapy benefits patients with poor prognostic indicators (CRS, 3–5), these patients were separated from those with a good CRS (0–2). Among patients with a poor CRS (3–5), the median survival times were 60 and 55 months, respectively, for those who received preoperative chemotherapy and those who did not (p = .79). Among patients with a CRS of 0–2, in those who received neoadjuvant therapy versus those who did not, the median survival times were 67 versus 114 months, respectively (p = .41). The results in this report may have been influenced by the addition of postoperative therapy after the liver resection. It is not clear that preoperative chemotherapy is helpful in resectable patients, but this concept requires further study.
Assessment of Chemotherapy Activity
Better Chemotherapy Tolerance
Surrogate Markers for Success of Liver Surgery Allen and colleagues looked at patients with synchronous liver metastases from January 1995–2000 at MSKCC. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was given to 52 of the 106 patients. The 5-year survival rates were similar in those who did and did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 43% and 35%, respectively (p = .49). Patients whose tumors did not progress while receiving chemotherapy had an increased survival compared to those who did not receive preoperative therapy (p = .03) [46]. An updated analysis showed no significant difference, with median survival times of 48 and 39 months (p = NS) for patients whose tumor did not progress on preoperative chemotherapy and those who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, respectively (personal observation). When analyzing patients who are considered unresectable, Folprecht et al. [47] found a strong relationship (r = 0.96, p = .002) between tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection in an analysis of five retrospective studies of patients with unresectable hepatic metastases. Considering only phase III studies, the correlation was not as significant (r = 0.67, p = .024).
Cons Liver Toxicity Steatosis represents fatty changes in the liver, as demonstrated by the presence of fat droplets within the hepatocytes (Fig. 1). Why would steatosis interfere with hepatic resection? It has been shown that steatosis may interfere with circulation through sinusoids and impair regeneration. The liver's protective mechanism against oxidative stress appear to be impaired by steatosis [53, 54], observed in liver transplantation. Figure 2 shows how normal liver parenchyma after preoperative chemotherapy–induced steatosis becomes less dense and therefore darker on computed tomography scans.
The morbidity following liver resection associated with steatosis has been reported in three trials. Belghiti et al. [55] noted that, in 747 patients, the mortality rate was higher in patients having steatosis than in those with no steatosis, 22% versus 8%, respectively (p = .003). In the Behrns et al. [56] study, of 135 patients, morbidity was seen in 29% and 10% of the patients with steatosis and without steatosis, respectively. Kooby et al. [49] evaluated 325 patients at MSKCC who had steatosis at the time of resection. Liver specimens were evaluated by two pathologists and classified as mild, moderate, or severe steatosis. The level of steatosis was compared with the rate of complications seen after liver resection. Twenty-three percent of patients with impaired wound healing had marked steatosis versus only 1% of patients with no steatosis (Table 3). Biliary complications and infection were also more frequent in patients with marked steatosis, as was any postoperative complication. If all complications were tabulated, the rates were 35%, 48%, and 62% in the groups with no steatosis, mild steatosis, and marked steatosis, respectively. The study also demonstrated that there were baseline characteristics that increased the chance for developing severe steatosis. Male gender, higher body mass index (BMI), and preoperative chemotherapy all were associated with a higher incidence of hepatic steatosis. In patients with abnormal liver pathology, only 38% had received preoperative chemotherapy, while in those with severe steatosis, 66% had received preoperative chemotherapy (Table 4).
Fernandez et al. [57] examined 37 patients who underwent resection for colorectal metastases. Thirteen had no prior chemotherapy and 10 received prior 5-FU, irinotecan, or oxaliplatin. The specimens from these patients were graded for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or liver injury score (LIS). The NASH score was significantly worse for patients who had received irinotecan or oxaliplatin than for patients with no prior chemotherapy or 5-FU alone (p = .003). The LIS was also worse for this group (p = .057). There was a direct relationship between BMI and NASH score. They also found that women tended to have a higher NASH score (p = .08). Patients receiving irinotecan or oxaliplatin had a higher LIS (p = .005). These investigators recommended that, if patients receive chemotherapy preoperatively, and particularly if they have a high BMI, there should be an evaluation of the liver parenchyma prior to liver resection. They suggested that, in cases with hepatotoxicity from chemotherapy, preoperative portal vein embolization of the involved liver should be used to increase the size of the uninvolved liver before liver resection [58, 59]. Benoist et al. [60] examined the results of 60 patients who underwent large liver resections, which required portal triad clamping or hepatic vascular exclusion, after receiving six cycles of preoperative chemotherapy. The morbidity rate was 18% with triad clamping and 43% after vascular exclusion (p = .044). Transfusion rates were high in both groups: 50% and 40%, respectively, which is higher than those reported by others after major liver resections [55]. Their conclusion, however, was that vascular occlusion can be used with acceptable morbidity in patients who need a major liver resection after prolonged chemotherapy. Preoperative chemotherapy can also lead to vascular changes, including sinusoidal dilatation, which involves congestion of the liver tissue surrounding the central venules (Fig. 3). Rubbia-Brandt et al. [50] reviewed pathologic slides from 153 patients who underwent liver resection in 1994–2002 at their institutions. They noted that 51% of those who had preoperative chemotherapy developed sinusoidal dilatation, which was not seen in those who did not receive preoperative chemotherapy. For those who had received previous oxaliplatin, 78% had striking sinusoidal changes. The authors hypothesized that the chemotherapy may have caused an injury to the endothelial cells that resulted in sinusoidal disruption. The observed sinusoidal lesions were similar to those seen in veno-occlusive disease. Sebagh et al. [61] reported on a series of 52 patients treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and found that only 38% had vascular lesions; they did not observe the veno-occlusive disease described by Rubbia-Brandt et al. [50]. In their series, the patients were given a chronomodulated infusion of chemotherapy, which they postulate could possibly have explained the difference in toxicity.
Vascular alterations can result in changes in the liver similar to cirrhosis and can make the liver appear blue ("blue liver") [62]. In a recent report, vascular lesions were categorized by what the authors felt were increasing grades of severity—sinusoidal vasodilation, peliosis, HCN, and regenerative nodular hyperplasia. From a cohort of 144 patients who had prior chemotherapy, 75 were randomly selected and compared with 17 patients from a group of 159 chemotherapy-naive patients [63]. In the treated group, 53 of 75 patients had received chronomodulated oxaliplatin/5-FU/LV, while 23 had received 5-FU/LV alone. Although the preoperative chemotherapy group had a similar number of major resections or liver segments resected, the mean transfusion rate was fourfold higher, 1.9 versus 0.5, respectively (p = .03), in those who had received preoperative chemotherapy. The incidence of all hepatic vascular lesions was greater in the chemotherapy group (p = .01; Table 5), while the incidence of steatosis was similar in the groups with or without prior chemotherapy. A multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative chemotherapy was the only prognostic factor that predicted the need for intraoperative transfusion. Patients who received preoperative chemotherapy were 2.26 times more likely to receive more than one unit of transfused blood intraoperatively, and patients with more blood loss experienced a more difficult recovery. When the 5-FU/LV group was compared with those receiving oxaliplatin/5-FU/LV, the incidence of steatosis was 26% versus 8% (p = .09), while the incidence of HCN in these groups was 4% versus 35% (p = .003), respectively. Transfusions were more commonly performed in patients with HCN. The greater morbidity seen in this trial has been seen in other trials. The EORTC 40983 trial, which compared preoperative chemotherapy with immediate surgery, had a complication rate of 24% in the treatment group and 13% in the surgery-alone group. However, the length of hospital stay did not differ [63].
The complication rate may increase with the length of time chemotherapy is administered. Karoui et al. [64] assessed the risk of preoperative chemotherapy by examining the patients who required total vascular exclusion to perform a major liver resection. The complication rate was 54% for those receiving six or more cycles of chemotherapy versus 19% for those receiving fewer than six cycles (p = .047). The overall morbidity rate was higher in those receiving preoperative chemotherapy than in those receiving no therapy, 38% versus 13.5%, respectively (p = .03). The number of patients with associated gastrointestinal procedures was higher in the chemotherapy group. Hepatic failure rates were 11% and 0%, respectively. Karoui et al. [64] reported that 49% of patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy demonstrated sinusoidal dilatation. A potentially more severe form of liver toxicity is steatohepatitis, depicted in Figure 4, with balloon degeneration and Mallory body formation. In a retrospective review of 406 patients who underwent resection in 1992–2005, Vauthey et al. [51] divided the patients into groups dependent on the type of preoperative chemotherapy or no chemotherapy and described the nontumor liver pathology in these groups. Four pathologists examined the liver and scored the degree of steatosis, steatohepatitis, and sinusoidal injury. One hundred fifty-eight patients had no prior chemotherapy, 63 had 5-FU alone, 94 had 5-FU plus irinotecan, and 79 had 5-FU plus oxaliplatin. Table 6 lists the type of hepatic injury stratified by the type of chemotherapy. Steatohepatitis was seen most often in patients who had received preoperative irinotecan (20%). The incidence of steatohepatitis was greater in patients with a BMI >25 kg/m2. In those treated with preoperative irinotecan, the incidences were 12.1% and 24.6%, and in those treated with preoperative oxaliplatin, the incidences were 0% and 11.9%, for patients with a BMI <25 kg/m2 versus those with a BMI >25 kg/m2, respectively. In patients who had received preoperative oxaliplatin, 18.9% had sinusoidal dilatation, and only 6.3% had steatohepatitis. The 90-day mortality rates were 14.7% and 1.6% for patients with or without steatohepatitis (p = .001), respectively, and the postoperative liver failure rates were also higher, 5.8% and 0.8%, respectively (p = .01). Death within 90 days was seen in 6.5% of patients with steatohepatitis and in 1.6% without steatohepatitis (p = .01). No patient died from sinusoidal injury.
Hepatotoxicity observed after preoperative HAI therapy is dependent on the drugs that are used. Tanaka et al. [65] examined 41 consecutive patients with five or more bilobar liver metastases from colorectal cancer who underwent major liver resections with or without prior HAI therapy. The HAI therapy was 5-FU/LV and cisplatin. The complication rates were about the same, 27% and 21%, respectively, in the groups with and without preoperative HAI therapy. The complications in the HAI group included wound abscess, liver stump abscess, biliary fistula, and intestinal obstruction. Severe steatosis was seen in 1 of 19 patients and 6 of 22 patients in the non-HAI and HAI groups, respectively (p = .197), while fibrosis of the centrilobular veins was seen in 5 of 19 and 8 of 22 patients, respectively. The significant differences were a lower platelet count (p < .01) and a higher alkaline phosphatase level on postoperative day 3 (p < .01) in the HAI group. The authors concluded that preoperative HAI therapy did not increase morbidity [65]. These were the toxicities with HAI 5-FU/LV and cisplatin. The toxicities with HAI FUDR are usually biliary (narrowing of bile ducts) and not parenchymal liver changes [1, 66].
Does Perioperative Bevacizumab Increase Morbidity? In a review from MSKCC [71], 32 patients underwent hepatic resection receiving perioperative bevacizumab, eight before, eight before and after, and 16 after surgery. Of the 16 patients who received preoperative bevacizumab, seven (43%) had complications, including pulmonary embolus, deep vein thrombosis, subphrenic abscess, three wound infections, and one urinary tract infection. In the 24 patients who received postoperative bevacizumab, there was one ventricular arrhythmia, three wound infections, one groin abscess, and one superficial thrombophlebitis. Thus, there were four (12.5%) cardiovascular events in these 32 patients. In the 32 matched controls, there were no cardiovascular events, although the matched controls seemed to have undergone more extensive surgery, with more extrahepatic disease resected. In another retrospective database of 1,186 patients who underwent liver resection, two subgroups were identified: those who had preoperative chemotherapy and bevacizumab (group 1) and those who had preoperative chemotherapy without bevacizumab (group 2). Forty-five patients from group 1 were compared with 82 patients from group 2. For patients who had concomitant surgical procedures, wound complications were more frequent in group 1 (p = .05) as were greater blood loss and hepatobiliary complications. Overall complications were not greater with the use of bevacizumab perioperatively [72]. To evaluate whether preoperative bevacizumab affects patients going for liver resection, the Bevacizumab Expanded Access Trial (BEAT) study was designed, in which bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) is given every 2 weeks with systemic chemotherapy (FOLFIRI or FOLFOX). Of the 43 patients who have undergone resection thus far, the median time from first bevacizumab treatment to surgery was 183 days, and the median time to resection after stopping bevacizumab was 67 days. Twenty-eight percent of patients have had complications, including operative site infection, gastric perforation, right pleural effusion, thrombosis of the portal vein, and myocardial infarct, as well as other toxicities, but the conclusion was that metastasectomy was feasible after bevacizumab treatment [73]. The results of larger studies are needed to ascertain whether bevacizumab is safe before resection. Ellis et al. [74] suggested that surgery 6–8 weeks after the last bevacizumab treatment is safe. However, waiting two half-lives or 6 weeks would still leave about 1.25 mg/kg of bevacizumab in the circulation.
Secondary Splenomegaly
Risk for Progression The EORTC has completed a study (EORTC 40983) to evaluate 3 months of preoperative FOLFOX and 3 months of postoperative FOLFOX versus immediate surgery alone. The eligibility criteria included no previous oxaliplatin chemotherapy and no extrahepatic disease. Of the 365 patients randomized to date, 94% have one to three metastases, and 42% have stage II disease. Of the 182 patients randomized to preoperative chemotherapy, 21 (11.5%) could not undergo surgery: seven because of disease progression, seven because of refusal or toxicity, and another seven for unstated reasons. Of the 182 patients without preoperative chemotherapy, nine (4.9%) were not operated on: five because of progression and four for unstated reasons [77]. It is too early to examine disease-free survival or overall survival. The pathology has been reviewed for 59 patients. Sinusoidal changes occurred in 48% of the treated group and 11% of the control group, while severe sinusoidal changes were seen in 41% and 0%, respectively (p = .0032). There has been no difference between groups in surgical complications thus far [78].
Management of Hepatic Metastases After a Complete Response to Chemotherapy
At MSKCC, 435 patients seen by the hepatobiliary surgeons and treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy were evaluated. One hundred seventeen lesions disappeared in 39 patients. Sixteen of these lesions were never evaluated in the operating room because the patients did not undergo surgery. Of the 95 surgically evaluated lesions, 52 lesions were not resected and 30 never recurred, with a median follow-up of 40 months. Forty-nine lesions were resected, and 43 had pathological complete response. There may be some differences in these results compared with those of the French study because some of these patients had HAI prior to having resection. In the patients receiving HAI, the pathological complete response rate was about 68%, while in the systemic alone group it was 29%. In patients who received preoperative HAI therapy alone, 14% of the lesions recurred, compared with a 42% recurrence rate with preoperative systemic chemotherapy (p < .001). They also found that lesions were significantly more likely to be found at surgery in patients whose surrounding liver demonstrated steatosis (p = .001) and in patients with a high BMI (>30 kg/m2; p = .002) [80]. Elias et al. [81] also demonstrated less recurrence after preoperative HAI therapy. They examined 104 patients who underwent liver resection for colorectal cancer over a 4-year period and found that 15 patients had a dramatic response to chemotherapy and a complete disappearance of at least one lesion by imaging. In four patients (27%), the lesions were found at laparotomy and removed, while in 11 patients the tumors could not be found and were not removed ("missing lesions"). Eight of these 11 patients did not have a recurrence, with a median follow-up of 31 months. There is no description of the type of chemotherapy given preoperatively to the whole group, but the authors do describe the therapy for those with missing lesions. Six of the 11 patients with missing lesions had received hepatic arterial therapy, either before (four patients) or afterward (two patients). Four of the eight patients who had received HAI never had a recurrence of the missing lesions [82].
For many years, the diagnosis of liver metastases from colon cancer portended a dismal outcome. The development of therapeutic agents that produce response rates in the 50% range has led to longer survival times, even in patients with unresectable disease. One of the advantages of these new agents is that they allow initially unresectable patients to become resectable, thus providing a chance of cure or longer survival. A challenge over the next few years will be to decide when these different modalities are best used. If chemotherapy can decrease the tumor size to a point where lesions cannot be seen but are not completely eradicated, then preoperative chemotherapy may be a disservice to initially resectable patients. Additionally, if preoperative chemotherapy produces more liver toxicity and thereby increases the risk for surgery, then preoperative chemotherapy may not prove to be advantageous for resectable patients. In patients who are clearly unresectable, there is no question that chemotherapy is the appropriate treatment. However, for those who are clearly resectable, there may be harm in giving preoperative chemotherapy. Until studies demonstrate that preoperative chemotherapy is useful in the resectable patient, those patients should be offered resection first and then be treated with postoperative chemotherapy (systemic therapy or HAI plus systemic therapy) [82–86]. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to develop an effective treatment plan for patients with liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma.
The author indicates no potential conflicts of interest.
Thank you to Deirdre B. Casey for manuscript preparation.
This article has been cited by other articles:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||