Marshall_cvr_revised2 9/30/08 11:25 AM Page 1 MANAGING COLORECTAL CANCER: THE RESECTABLE AND POTENTIALLY RESECTABLE PATIENT—A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH Supported by an educational grant from From the publishers of ONCOLOGY COAB Clinical Oncology Advisory Board Managing Colorectal Cancer: The Resectable and Potentially Resectable Patient— A Multidisciplinary Approach John L. Marshall, MD Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center Georgetown University Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, FACS Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine CME 3 ❖ Managing Colorectal Cancer: The Resectable and Potentially Resectable Patient— A Multidisciplinary Approach Edited by John L. Marshall, MD Chief Division of Hematology and Oncology Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center Georgetown University Washington, D.C. Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, FACS Professor of Surgery and Oncology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland Publishers of ONCOLOGY Oncology News International Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach www.cancernetwork.com i COAB Clinical Oncology Advisory Board Note to the reader: The information in this book has been carefully reviewed for accuracy of dosage and indications. Before prescribing any drug, however, the clinician should consult the manufacturer’s current package labeling for accepted indications, absolute dosage recommendations, and other information pertinent to the safe and effective use of the product described. This is especially important when drugs are given in combination or as an adjunct to other forms of therapy. Furthermore, some of the medications described herein, as well as some of the indications mentioned, may not have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug administration at the time of publication. This possibility should be borne in mind before prescribing or recommending any drug or regimen. Educational activities in the form of monographs, audio programs, supplements, and other formats are sent to the readership of ONCOLOGY and Oncology News International on a regular basis. All recipients of the journals can opt out of receiving them and accompanying educational activities at any time by contacting our circulation department at CMPMedica, phone: (203) 662-6551 or by e-mail: [email protected]. Copyright ©2008 by CME LLC. All rights reserved. This book is protected by copyright. No part of it may be reproduced in any manner or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the publisher. Value: $19.95. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 2008926818 ISBN 9781891483608 Cover image description: A patient with colorectal metastases. Preoperative evaluation identified two metastases confined to the right hemiliver. Figures: FDG-PET/CT (left), contrastenhanced MRI (upper right), intraoperative ultrasonography (lower middle), and intraoperative specimen of right hepatectomy (lower right). Images courtesy of Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, FACS. Publishers of ONCOLOGY Oncology News International Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach www.cancernetwork.com ❖ Contents CME 3 Contributing Authors iv Continuing Medical Education vi Acknowledgments ix Preface xi 1 Defining the Multidisciplinary Team: How the Community-Based Oncologist Can Build a Team John L. Marshall, MD 1 2 Defining Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Indications, Outcomes, and Controversies Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, FACS 9 3 The Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients with Potentially Resectable Colorectal Metastases Eleni Liapi, MD, and Ihab R. Kamel, MD, PhD 4 Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer Veena Shankaran, MD, and Al B. Benson III, MD, FACP 5 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection: Ablation, Intraarterial Therapy, and Radiation Therapy Susan L. Logan, MD, MPP, and Eric K. Nakakura, MD, PhD 17 43 57 6 Suggested Strategies in the Management of Resectable and Potentially Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer 75 John L. Marshall, MD, and Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, FACS CME Post-Test 83 Index 87 To earn CME credit at no cost, please visit us online at www.cancernetwork.com/cme iii ❖ Contributing Authors John L. Marshall, MD Chief Division of Hematology and Oncology Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center Georgetown University Washington, D.C. Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, FACS Professor of Surgery and Oncology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland Al B. Benson III, MD, FACP Professor Division of Hematology and Oncology Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University Chicago, Illinois Ihab R. Kamel, MD, PhD Associate Professor, Radiology Interim Clinical Director, MRI Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland Eleni Liapi, MD Postdoctoral Fellow Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Maryland iv Contributing Authors Susan L. Logan, MD, MPP Fellow, Section of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic Surgery Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis St. Louis, Missouri Eric K. Nakakura, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Surgery Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Division of Surgical Oncology Department of Surgery University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine San Francisco, California Veena Shankaran, MD Postdoctoral Fellow Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University Chicago, Illinois v ❖ Continuing Medical Education Monograph Activity Release Date: November 1, 2008 Activity Expiration Date: November 1, 2009 About the Activity The CME activity is based on the information learned from reading this monograph, Managing Colorectal Cancer: The Resectable and Potentially Resectable Patient—A Multidisciplinary Approach. It was developed from an identified educational need for information about practical management issues in the practice of medical, surgical, and radiation oncology. This activity has been developed and approved under the direction of CME LLC. Activity Learning Objectives After reading Managing Colorectal Cancer: The Resectable and Potentially Resectable Patient—A Multidisciplinary Approach, participants should be able to: • Understand that neo-adjuvant/perioperative chemotherapy can help some metastatic colorectal cancer patients. • Incorporate a team approach into practice (i.e., community-based oncologist, surgeon, and radiotherapist). • Demonstrate knowledge of the proper timing for chemotherapeutic/biologic agents, types of agents, and amount of chemotherapy for those patients needing resection. • Apply monitoring guidelines with radiologist to prevent hepatotoxicity. • Use the latest surgical techniques in liver resection. vi Continuing Medical Education vii Target Audience This activity targets physicians in the fields of oncology and hematology. Accreditation This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and Policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education through the joint sponsorship of CME LLC and The Oncology Group. CME LLC is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians. Credit Designation CME LLC designates this educational activity for a maximum of 3 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians not licensed in the United States who participate in this CME activity are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Compliance Statement This activity is an independent educational activity under the direction of CME LLC. The activity was planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and Policies of the ACCME, the Ethical Opinions/Guidelines of the AMA, the FDA, the OIG, and the PhRMA Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals, thus assuring the highest degree of independence, fair balance, scientific rigor, and objectivity. However, CME LLC, the Grantor, and CMPMedica shall in no way be liable for the currency of information or for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the activity. Discussions concerning drugs, dosages, and procedures may reflect the clinical experience of the author(s), or they may be derived from the professional literature or other sources and may suggest uses that are investigational in nature and not approved labeling or indications. Activity participants are encouraged to refer to primary references or to the full prescribing information resources. The opinions and recommendations presented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the provider or producer. To earn CME credit at no cost, please visit us online at www.cancernetwork.com/cme viii Continuing Medical Education Financial Disclosure Dr. Marshall has received honoraria, research support, and has served as a consultant for Roche, sanofi-aventis, Pfizer, Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and ImClone. Dr. Choti has served as a consultant and speaker for sanofi-aventis and Genentech. Dr. Benson has received research support from and served as a scientific advisor for Genentech, Amgen, Roche, Pfizer, ImClone, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Taiho, and sanofi-aventis. Drs. Kamel, Liapi, Logan, Nakakura, and Shankaran have no financial relationships to disclose. Copyright Copyrights owned by CME LLC. Copyright ©2008. Contact Information We would like to hear your comments regarding this or other activities provided by CME LLC. In addition, suggestions for future programming are welcome. Contact us at: Address: Phone: Director of Continuing Education CME LLC Harborside Financial Center Plaza 3, Suite #806 Jersey City, NJ 07311 (888) 618-5781 Supported by an educational grant from ❖ Acknowledgments We both would like to express our great thanks to our colleagues who helped author this book, our collaborators in our everyday practices, our families who supported our vision, and all the patients who put their lives into our hands. ––John L. Marshall, MD, and Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, FACS ix ❖ Preface The possibility of curing patients with metastatic colon cancer is possibly the greatest advance in gastrointestinal cancers in the past twenty years. Newer surgical techniques, novel and more effective chemotherapy, and better imaging have expanded the number of patients who are candidates for this approach. However, along with this is increasing confusion about how best to achieve the goal. Clearly, we need increased multidisciplinary communication, access to experts in the field, and an understanding of the “rules” of the game. We hope that you find this text helpful in your practice. We have tried to bring all these issues together in one easy-to-read text. Best regards, John L. Marshall, MD, and Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, FACS xi 1 Defining the Multidisciplinary Team: How the Community-Based Oncologist Can Build a Team John L. Marshall, MD It has only been a few short years since we have recognized that selected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer can, in fact, be cured. When most of us trained in medical school, the thought of performing surgery on metastatic lesions with the hope of curative intent was quite foreign. Our understanding of metastatic cancer was that while there may be only a few visible metastatic lesions, we were certain that all of these patients had significant “invisible” microscopic metastatic disease that would, in the end, define the patient’s outcome. However, after nearly two decades of focused work in the area of metastatic colon cancer resections, there has developed an understanding that a subset of patients with metastatic disease can, in fact, be cured through surgical techniques. The improvements in chemotherapy and imaging modalities and the enhanced skills of hepatic and other cancer surgeons have come together to better the patient’s odds of curative therapy despite having increasingly higher risk disease. In this chapter, I focus on the requirements for a multidisciplinary team whose charge is to define and carry out curative therapy for CME 1 2 Defining the Multidisciplinary Team patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We recognize that this effort is not housed in one medical subspecialty but, in fact, requires detailed ongoing communications between a variety of medical specialists, each of whom is focused on and dedicated to patients with this disease. The challenge for us as a medical community is to provide the optimum resources for our patients. Our hope is that this chapter will help serve those who are attempting to put together such a resource. Recognizing the Potentially Curable Patient The first and most important element in the pathway of curative resection for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is to recognize those patients who may be candidates. In general, these patients are divided into two main categories (Figure 1). The first category are those who are thought to be resectable at presentation. Resectability will be defined in detail in Chapter 2 of this book. However, medical oncologists are not typically trained in the anatomy of the liver and liver metastases and, therefore, may not have the expertise to define a patient who is resectable and who is not. However, it is the medical oncologist who typically is the primary caregiver for a patient in this setting who also will initiate the process. Therefore, medical oncologists should become familiar with the definitions so that they can initiate the referrals in order to optimize the patient’s chance for curative resection. Diagnosis of MCRC Resectable Neo-adjuvant/ Preoperative therapy Unresectable Borderline/ Potentially Resectable First-Line Second-Line Treatment continuum Surgery Third-Line Adjuvant therapy Fourth-Line Figure 1. Anatomic division of metastatic colon cancer. MCRC = metastatic colorectal cancer. Defining the Multidisciplinary Team 3 In some ways, the patient who has immediately resectable disease is the easiest one to define. These typically are patients with one or two small, peripherally isolated lesions within the liver or lung. Even to a fairly untrained eye, this would seem to be anatomically resectable. More difficult are the cases where either multiple lesions exist in multiple lobes of the liver, where lesions are found close to key vascular channels, or when multiple organs are involved. There is no strict definition of what is resectable and what is not. The second category is patients who have lesions that are too large for resection but may have them reduced in size through chemotherapy. The concept of taking patients who are initially unresectable and making them resectable through downsizing of the lesion has been dubbed “conversion therapy.” Within this group, two subtypes emerge, those with a limited number of lesions that are too large for resection and those with multiple lesions at presentation who experience pathologic complete responses in some areas. This latter group will be discussed in Chapter 6 as they represent a controversial circumstance. In both categories, the medical oncologist is reviewing the patient’s computed tomography scan or imaging reports that define the recurrent disease and is most often responsible for initiating the process. I would like to stress at this point that using the traditional average radiology report is frequently inadequate to define the patient’s resectability. While radiologists are increasingly recognizing the need to make this important distinction, many radiology reports still refer to “multiple hepatic metastases,” which typically is considered unresectable but may in fact be anatomically resectable. Therefore, it is critical for the initiating physician to review the actual films either with the radiologist or with the hepatic surgeon. Once the patient has been defined as either resectable immediately or may benefit from conversion therapy, it is appropriate to incorporate the other team members into the process of creating a plan of attack with curative intent in the metastatic setting. Some patients require referral before chemotherapy is initiated, whereas others may be referred later in the process. Having the team and referral patterns established is key to providing optimal care. Team Members Following the identification of a potential candidate for resection of metastatic disease, a series of other physician and physician teams are typically involved (Figure 2). First, additional imaging is frequently obtained. Either using magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission 4 Defining the Multidisciplinary Team • Surgeon • Radiologist – CT, MRI, PET? • Interventional Radiologist – RFA? • Radiation Oncology – IMRT/Cyberknife? • Medical Oncologist – Role of chemotherapy, before or after surgery • How do you decide who does what and when? Figure 2. Curing stage IV colon cancer requires a multidisciplinary team. CT = computed tomography, IMRT = intensity-modulated radiation therapy, MRI = magnetic resonance imaging, PET = positron emission tomography, RFA = radiofrequency ablation. tomography (PET) scanning or both, the patients are imaged in order to determine first the anatomy of the disease that is known and to try to define any other disease that may not be immediately recognized on initial scanning. A recent abstract from the 2008 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology suggests that PET scanning is quite useful in defining the patients who ultimately will be found to have unresectable disease and, therefore, appears to be an important step in the process of screening the patient for resectability (1). Whether one uses computed tomography scan, magnetic resonance imaging, or PET scanning in many ways depends on the expertise, skill, and equipment of the local community. What the best imaging modality is for your team should be discussed with the radiology groups in the area. The key to the entire process is, of course, the surgeon. Hepatic surgery has improved dramatically over the last decade, and more physicians are engaging in hepatic resections. However, hepatic surgery remains a surgical technique that requires a great deal of experience to produce the best outcomes. Evidence suggests that surgical centers with high volumes of these procedures have much better outcomes (2). Experienced surgeons are better equipped to handle unexpected findings such as finding multiple hepatic metastases or when to incorporate radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or the use of staged surgeries that can be incorporated. Not all communities can support such a surgeon; and therefore, it Defining the Multidisciplinary Team 5 is a strong recommendation that patients requiring hepatic resections be referred to specialized centers for this intervention. Certainly most colon cancer surgery is performed by general surgeons within the community setting. Most, if not all, of those general surgeons are competent to perform liver wedge resections during a standard operation. However, as the complexity increases, the patient is best served by surgery performed by a dedicated hepatic surgeon. Thoracic lesions are also legitimate targets for surgical resection. In this setting, it is also important to refer patients to chest surgeons experienced in this area. Newer, minimally invasive techniques may speed the recovery and are quite appropriate for patients in whom pulmonary lesions are to be removed. Here again, timing the different procedures of chemotherapy and surgery must be coordinated. Interventional radiology remains an important part of curative therapies for patients with hepatic metastases. RFA techniques are recognized as a valid tool for the treatment of hepatic metastases, and RFA is increasingly being used in other anatomic locations, although fewer data exist to support this. The data on long-term survival and local control are not as good as with surgical resections but often, due to a variety of circumstances, surgical resection is not possible. Therefore, interventional radiology remains an important element in the creative strategies of patients with metastatic disease. Radiation oncology traditionally does not play a role in the management of hepatic metastases for curative intent. Certainly radiation can be an effective palliation. However, newer techniques are raising the question of whether treatment such as Cyberknife-focused radiation may have the potential for long-term disease control. Certainly no clinical trials have been done at this point to test this, and it would be incorporated only if surgery or RFA is not possible. Central to the process is the medical oncologist who serves as the “quarterback” and primary care physician for these patients as they are ushered through the team system. This responsibility requires that the oncologist be familiar with the various techniques available to the patients, what expertise is in their own community and what will need to be referred outside, and what role chemotherapy plays in the process. In many ways, this book is directed toward oncologists to provide them with a guide for optimizing care. If your community does not have the expertise as outlined above, then it would be my recommendation that these patients be referred to a center that can provide this sort of multidisciplinary interactive approach. Common in our Washington, D.C.–based system is for patients to be referred to our center for hepatic surgery or interventional radiology and often for 6 Defining the Multidisciplinary Team consideration of clinical trials before or after this therapy. However, it is also most common for these patients to remain with their primary medical oncologist and to be followed for life by them. Unless the local community is willing to invest significant resources to provide this infrastructure, referring to specialized centers seems the most logical step for most groups in less populated regions. Develop a Strategy: Who Goes First? Probably one of the most difficult decisions in approaching the patient with curative intent is who should go first. There is no clear data that suggests that chemotherapy before or after surgical resection is required when patients are resectable at presentation. In patients who have larger tumors and are in need of conversion therapy, this answer is the easiest because chemotherapy must be given first, as a response is required. However, in patients who have immediately resectable disease, many factors, most of which are subjective, come into play in deciding whether surgery or chemotherapy should be first. Even the decisions about surgery versus RFA are sometimes difficult and depend a lot on the patients and the expertise of the individuals at hand. Communication is the key. Most hospitals and cancer groups interact through a tumor board—typically weekly meetings that review cases. Given the increasing volume of all types of cancer cases to be presented in a typical tumor board, it is reasonable to develop a tumor board dedicated to gastrointestinal cancers or to use part of ongoing tumor boards to serve this purpose. Many breast cancer groups have come to the same conclusion and have developed breast-specific tumor boards. What is important is to get all parties together to discuss the strategy. This, of course, can be done virtually with effective referral patterns and communication systems in place. Given that for many cases, there is no clear correct sequence of multi-modality therapy, we must also weigh a patient’s preferences. There are some patients who are not eager to pursue surgery unless it is going to have a high-level benefit, and often then chemotherapy is given first to those patients. There are others who are eager to have the surgery as soon as possible. Whenever multi-modality therapy is used, it is my experience that physician bias, personality, institutional tradition (and even simple issues such as a physician’s schedule) can play a major role in how patients are treated. We must recognize these issues and do what we can to prevent them from interfering with optimal care. Defining the Multidisciplinary Team 7 Continual Reassessments After initiating the treatment approach, there must be ongoing reassessments by all parties. The bar for defining resectable disease is changing rapidly. More and more aggressive surgical techniques have been incorporated into patient management, but we must maintain an appropriate balance between the new frontier of surgical resection in metastatic disease, and the reality that metastatic colon cancer typically is a multi-focal disease, and currently, only a few patients are cured through surgical techniques. Again, some patients will become resectable while others will become higher risk, poor candidates. The ongoing monitoring of patients typically falls to the medical oncologist who should keep the various parties informed as the patient progresses through the steps of the treatment. In conclusion, most communities should have recognized experts in the area of colorectal cancer management. Not all communities will have all of the different tools that are necessary to have a complete multidisciplinary team. By defining the team and its key components, medical communities can decide how they want to provide this care for their patients. Certainly throughout the country, there are cancer centers that can provide this sort of care and can support smaller communities, but the majority of the care can be delivered in the local community. References 1. Wiering B, Oyen W, Van der Sijp J, et al. Improved selection of patients for hepatic surgery of colorectal liver metastases with FDG-PET: a randomized study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2008;26:179s. Abstract 4004. 2. Sah BK, Zhu ZG, Chen MM, et al. Effect of surgical work volume on postoperative complication: superiority of specialized center in gastric cancer treatment. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2008; Jun 27. 2 Defining Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Indications, Outcomes, and Controversies Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, FACS Cancer of the colon and rectum account for the majority of primary tumors that develop isolated liver metastases and are candidates for surgical resection. This malignancy is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States and second overall in cancer mortality. Approximately 20% of patients have clinically recognizable liver metastases at the time of their primary diagnosis. After resection of a primary colorectal cancer in the absence of apparent metastatic disease, approximately 50% of patients will subsequently manifest metastatic liver disease. Given these figures, one can expect that at least 30,000 patients per year in the United States will develop metastatic colorectal cancer confined to the liver, each year. Selecting Patients for Surgical Resection Perioperative mortality associated with liver resection has decreased from 20% several decades ago to close to 1% in patients undergoing liver resection in more recent years. In deciding which patients will tolerate a major liver resection, a number of factors need to be considered, including patient comorbidities. Patients with underlying coronary artery disease, CME 9 10 Defining Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer congestive heart failure, renal insufficiency, as well as other debilitating states should be considered at greater risk for postoperative complications. A major goal of the preoperative evaluation, therefore, is to identify patients who are at a high operative risk so that patients who represent a prohibitive risk can be excluded while those patients with manageable comorbidities can have these conditions addressed preoperatively in an attempt to reduce their risk. The health and function of the non–tumor-bearing liver is clearly one of the most important factors impacting resectability and outcomes following liver resection. In patients undergoing surgery for hepatic colorectal metastases, cirrhosis is rarely present. However, increasing use of prolonged preoperative combination chemotherapy can result in significant steatosis, steatohepatitis, and sinusoidal dilatation. These changes can, in some cases, be associated with increased postoperative morbidity. In patients with cirrhosis, the postoperative morbidity following partial hepatectomy remains significant, primarily related to liver dysfunction. Assessment of hepatic functional reserve is important when deciding whether resection should be pursued. New Criteria for Defining Resectability in Patients with Hepatic Metastases In the past, resection of hepatic colorectal metastases was not attempted in patients who had more than three or four metastases, hilar adenopathy, metastases within 1 cm of major vessels such as the vena cava or main hepatic veins, or extrahepatic disease. More recent studies demonstrate, however, that patients with these clinicopathologic factors can achieve longterm survival following hepatic resection and therefore should not be excluded from surgical consideration. Specifically, the number of metastases is no longer considered a contraindication to surgery (1). Similarly, contiguous extension to adjacent anatomical structures and local or regional recurrence at the site of the primary colorectal cancer are not contraindications to resection. An increasing number of studies also indicate that although survival may be reduced in patients with extrahepatic colorectal metastases (2), complete resection of limited extrahepatic disease in conjunction with resection of hepatic metastases can result in long-term survival. Taken together, these data have led to a shift in the definition of resectability from criteria based on the characteristics of the metastatic disease (tumor number, size, etc.) to new criteria based on whether a macroscopic and microscopic complete (R0) resection of the liver disease can be achieved (2). Currently, hepatic colorectal metastases should be defined as Defining Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer 11 Table 1. Criteria defining resectability for surgical resection 1. Macroscopic and microscopic (R0) treatment of the disease is feasible with either resection alone or resection combined with radiofrequency ablation. 2. At least two adjacent liver segments can be spared. 3. Adequate vascular inflow, outflow, and biliary drainage can be preserved. 4. Sufficient remnant liver volume (>20% of the total estimated liver volume in normal liver, >40% of total estimated liver volume in cirrhotic liver). resectable when it is anticipated that disease can be completely resected, two adjacent liver segments can be spared, adequate vascular inflow and outflow and biliary drainage can be preserved, and the volume of the liver remaining after resection is sufficient (3) (Table 1). The size of the remnant volume considered safe varies with the condition of the hepatic parenchyma. In healthy livers, a remnant liver volume greater than 20% of the estimated total liver volume is considered sufficient (4). In contrast, patients with cirrhosis need at least 40% remnant liver volume in order to avoid postoperative liver failure. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging can now provide an accurate, reproducible method for preoperatively measuring the volume of the future liver remnant. In cases where major hepatectomy is planned Figure 1. Conversion of tumors to a resectable state. 12 Defining Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Table 2. Categories of resectability 1. Initially resectable disease by standard approach 2. Initially resectable but requires extended approach • Staged resections • Preoperative portal vein embolization • Resection plus ablation 3. Initially unresectable but likely convertible with tumor response 4. Initially unresectable and unlikely convertible and there is concern regarding insufficient liver volume, these patients should be considered for staged liver resection or portal vein embolization (PVE) to induce hypertrophy of the contralateral liver lobe (5). Similarly, staged resections allow for removal of a portion of metastatic disease in one part of the liver, followed by some hepatic regeneration before proceeding to a second-stage completion resection. Preoperative chemotherapy can also be used in patients who are thought to be initially unresectable. In some cases, tumor response can result in conversion to a resectable state (Figure 1). Taken together, resectability can be classified into resectable using a standard approach, resectable through an extended approach, potentially convertible with preoperative therapy, or unresectable and unlikely convertible (Table 2). Outcomes of Liver Resection for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases Overall, the perioperative mortality of liver resection for colorectal metastases is approximately 1% in most current reported series. In experienced hands, even major hepatic resections (hemi-hepatectomy or extended hepatectomy), which are performed in about half of the cases, result in perioperative mortalities of less than 5%. The potential for adverse outcome and the complexity of these operations justifies the recommendation that major liver resection be performed at centers and by surgeons having experience with such procedures. Complication rates for liver resection of metastatic disease are approximately 15%. The major morbidity associated specifically with liver resection includes hemorrhage, perihepatic abscess, bile leak and/or fistula, pleural effusion, and hepatic failure. With regard to survival, large series from the 1960s through the mid1990s reported 5-year survival rates in the range of 33%–36% for Defining Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer 13 Table 3. Reported 5-year survival after resection of colorectal liver metastasis with curative intent Year of publication Investigator Scheele et al. (6) Fong et al. (7) Choti et al. (8) Abdalla et al. (10) Fernandez et al. (11) Pawlik et al. (9) 1995 1999 2002 2004 2004 2005 Years included in study 1960–1992 1985–1998 1993–1999 1992–2002 1992–2002 1990–2004 5-Year survival % 39 37 58 58 58 58 patients with colorectal liver metastases resected with curative intent (6,7). However, more recent data have shown an improved 5-year survival rate of 58% following complete resection of colorectal liver metastases (8–11) (Table 3). This improvement in overall survival likely reflects improvement in patient selection, surgical technique, and more effective adjuvant therapy. Several clinicopathologic factors predictive of patient survival after hepatic resection have been identified. These include stage, grade, and nodal status of the primary colorectal tumor; disease-free interval from diagnosis of primary tumor to diagnosis of liver metastases; number and distribution of liver metastases; level of preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen; and presence of extrahepatic disease. Although preoperative factors may be generally instructive, these factors should not be used to exclude patients from surgical consideration. Patients with one or multiple negative prognostic factors can still derive a significant survival advantage from hepatic resection of their colorectal metastases. Extrahepatic Disease: Contraindication to Surgery? Historically, the presence of extrahepatic metastatic disease was routinely considered an absolute contraindication to surgical therapy with curative intent. However, the role of hepatic resection in this setting has recently been reexamined. Approximately 5%–10% of patients who present with metastatic disease will have a combination of liver and lung metastases; and therefore, there has been interest in how this subset of patients should be treated. Several studies have reported results for 14 Defining Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer patients undergoing combined lung and liver resection (12). These studies have reported 5-year survival rates of greater than 30%. There are, however, a number of factors that do appear to be associated with a particularly poor prognosis. Patients with bilateral disease or who have more than six pulmonary metastases were 50%–70% more at risk for disease-specific death compared with other patients. Thus, particular attention must be paid when considering these high-risk patients for combined liver and lung resection. Resection of other extrahepatic sites is more controversial. Unlike pericolic nodal disease, hilar lymph nodes are felt to be “metastases from metastases” and are associated with a poor outcome. Some investigators have reported long-term survival in selected patients with hilar nodal metastases and have concluded that this patient population may still benefit from hepatic resection (13). Some centers have advocated resection of peritoneal carcinomatosis as well. These procedures are typically incomplete debulking procedures performed in combination with intraperitoneal chemotherapy. However, such therapy is not the standard of care and, in general, liver resection is not indicated in the presence of diffuse carcinomatosis. As with liver resection itself, the ability to achieve a complete macro- and microscopic resection of all known disease is critical to long-term outcome. These data serve to emphasize that hepatic resection in the setting of extrahepatic disease is only warranted when an R0 resection is feasible. Patients with disease not amenable to a complete resection should not be offered combined metastectomies of intra- and extrahepatic disease. Summary Liver resection currently represents one of the most effective therapeutic options for patients with limited colorectal metastases. Recent improvements in whole-body and hepatic imaging have allowed for more accurate selection of those patients who may benefit most from resection. Traditional clinicopathologic factors, although helpful in stratifying patients with regard to prognosis, should not be used to exclude otherwise resectable patients from surgery, particularly in those with hepatic colorectal metastases. The use of modern surgical techniques is reducing perioperative morbidity and mortality, while PVE, preoperative therapy, and combining resection with other approaches, such as ablation, can expand the population of patients who are candidates for surgical treatment. Perhaps the most important strategy when considering the multitude of therapeutic options for such patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is the development of an individual treatment plan based on dis- Defining Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer 15 cussion among a multidisciplinary team of specialists, including surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiologists. References 1. Kokudo N, Imamura H, Sugawara Y, et al. Surgery for multiple hepatic colorectal metastases. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2004;11:84–91. 2. Pawlik TM, Schulick RD, Choti MA. Expanding criteria for resectability of colorectal liver metastases. Oncologist 2008;13:51–64. 3 Charnsangavej C, Clary B, Fong Y, et al. Selection of patients for resection of hepatic colorectal metastases: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;3(10):1261–1268. 4. Abdalla EK, Denys A, Chevalier P, et al. Total and segmental liver volume variations: implications for liver surgery. Surgery 2004;135(4):404–410. 5. Abdalla EK, Hicks ME, Vauthey JN. Portal vein embolization: rationale, technique and future prospects. Br J Surg 2001;88:165–175. 6. Scheele J, Stang R, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Paul M. Resection of colorectal liver metastases. World J Surg 1995;19:59–71. 7. Fong Y, Fortner J, Sun RL, et al. Clinical score for predicting recurrence after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of 1001 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 1999;230:309–318, discussion 318–321. 8. Choti MA, Sitzmann JV, Tiburi MF, et al. Trends in long-term survival following liver resection for hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 2002;235: 759–766. 9. Pawlik TM, Scoggins CR, Zorzi D, et al. Effect of surgical margin status on survival and site of recurrence after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 2005;241:715–722, discussion 722–714. 10. Abdalla EK, Vauthey JN, Ellis LM, et al. Recurrence and outcomes following hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, and combined resection/ablation for colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg 2004;239:818–825. 11. Fernandez FG, Drebin JA, Linehan DC, et al. Five-year survival after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer in patients screened by positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET). Ann Surg 2004;240:438–447. 12. Murata S, Moriya Y, Akasu T, et al. Resection of both hepatic and pulmonary metastases in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 1998;83: 1086–1093. 13. Jaeck D. The significance of hepatic pedicle lymph nodes metastases in surgical management of colorectal liver metastases and of other liver malignancies. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:1007–1011. 3 The Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients with Potentially Resectable Colorectal Metastases Eleni Liapi, MD, and Ihab R. Kamel, MD, PhD In the United States, colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies and a leading cause of death (1). Hepatic metastases are present in 15%–25% of patients at the time of diagnosis of colorectal cancer and another 25%–50% will develop liver metastases in 5 years’ time, after resection of the primary tumor (2). In approximately half of these patients, metastatic disease is confined to the liver. For these patients, resection of the metastases is the treatment of choice and can result in a 5-year survival rate of 35%–58% (3). Recent advances in surgical techniques, refinement of patient selection, and available imaging modalities have challenged the traditional inclusion criteria of patients eligible for resection and have increased the number of patients who could benefit from surgery (4). It is therefore essential to identify the patients who are more likely to benefit from surgery. Radiologic imaging plays a critically important role in identifying and staging these patients. The imaging modalities available for assessment of patients with potentially resectable colorectal metastases include transabdominal ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), 18F fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), and magnetic resonance imagCME 17 18 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients ing (MRI). Although extensive improvement and research have been performed in regard to the diagnostic performance of CT, MRI, and FDG-PET for the detection of colorectal liver metastases, the optimal imaging staging strategy is yet to be defined. Currently, the optimal imaging strategy for patients with potentially resectable colorectal liver metastases depends to some degree on the local resources and expertise, as well as the available imaging modalities. A multi-modality strategy is recommended because no single modality can accurately detect all colorectal liver metastases. The goals of imaging assessment for these patients are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. To define the number and extent of hepatic metastases in the segmental and lobar distribution To assist in the planning of the hepatic resection To evaluate the residual volume of the remnant liver (when extensive resection is being planned) To identify extrahepatic disease, including nodal metastases, peritoneal implants, regional or other sites of hematogenous spread such as pulmonary metastases To assess response to neo-adjuvant therapy for downstaging of initially unresectable hepatic metastases. In this chapter, we aim to clarify the role of each imaging modality in the evaluation and staging of patients with potentially resectable colorectal metastases. Moreover, as imaging plays a vital role in surgical planning, we aim to depict the essential elements (morphologic and functional) of hepatic image interpretation that play a role in refining patient selection for surgery. Definition of Resectability The definition of surgical resectability of liver metastases has changed over time as new chemotherapeutic agents and more aggressive therapies have emerged (5). In the past, resection of hepatic colorectal metastases was not attempted in patients who had more than three or four metastases, hilar adenopathy, metastases within 1 cm of major vessels such as the vena cava or main hepatic veins, or extrahepatic disease. Recent studies, however, demonstrate that some patients who fulfill the above “exclusion” criteria may achieve long-term survival after hepatic resection and therefore should not be excluded from surgical consideration. These recent data have lead to a reformation of the definition of resectability. Specifically, the number of metastases is no longer considered a contraindication to surgery (6). Similarly, extension to Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 19 adjacent anatomic structures and local or regional recurrence at the site of the primary colorectal cancer are not contraindications to resection. An increasing number of studies also indicate that although survival may be reduced in patients with extrahepatic colorectal metastases, complete resection of limited extrahepatic disease can result in longterm survival (5). Currently, hepatic colorectal metastases should be defined as resectable when: a. b. c. d. it is anticipated that the disease can be completely resected, two adjacent liver segments can be spared, adequate vascular inflow and outflow and biliary drainage can be preserved, and the volume of the future liver remnant will be adequate (at least 20% of the total estimated liver volume). Imaging Techniques All patients being considered for resection of colorectal liver metastases should undergo preoperative CT or MRI to evaluate the extent of intrahepatic disease and to exclude extrahepatic metastases. FDG-PET has been recently recommended for routine preoperative imaging, which is particularly sensitive in the detection of extrahepatic disease (7). Below, we describe how each imaging modality contributes to the diagnosis and staging of these patients. Transabdominal Ultrasonography Conventional transabdominal US has a relatively low sensitivity (53%– 77%), compared with CT (85%) and intraoperative ultrasound (95%) for the detection of liver metastases (8). The US sensitivity depends on the size of a metastasis, and is only 20% for metastases less than 10 mm (9). Moreover, isoechoic metastases are difficult to detect on conventional US, while hyperechoic metastases can mimic hemangiomas (10). Finally, it is well known that US is significantly more operator dependent than the other imaging methods, and its sensitivity is reduced in patients with obesity, interposition of intestine, tissue-composition, or lack of patient cooperation. Recent studies have shown that the US technique using IV contrast media seems to improve sensitivity in detecting liver metastases by about 50% (ranging from 63% to 91%) and improve specificity from 60% to 20 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 88% (9). These promising results may initially seem comparable to the best-reported results of CT; however, a closer look reveals several limitations such as patient selection bias and no clear comparison to gold standards (11). In our institution, we use 3.5–5 MHz curved-array transducers to detect liver metastases using percutaneous transabdominal US. Findings suggestive of metastases include solid lesions and the presence of a hypoechoic halo surrounding a liver mass (Figure 1.) Power Doppler and second-harmonic imaging with contrast agents may improve detection and characterization of liver metastases. Multidetector Computed Tomography Multidetector CT (MDCT), performed with IV injection of iodinated contrast medium, allows single breath-hold, volumetric data acquisition during multiphase imaging for angiographic and parenchymal evaluation of the liver. The main objective in scanning the liver using MDCT is to obtain timed hepatic arterial phase and portal venous phase accurately, each in a single breath-hold (12). Recent studies with MDCT scanners have increased sensitivity of lesion detection to between 70% and 95% (13). However, lesions smaller than 1 cm remain problematic because of a high false-negative rate of about 10% and nonspecificity of lesions. Colorectal hepatic metastases are most commonly hypovascular and are most conspicuous in the portal-venous phase, when there is high contrast between them and the enhanced surrounding hepatic parenchyma. In the late arterial phase, rim enhancement is often present, but the most sensitive phase for detection of colorectal liver metastases is the portal venous phase (Figure 2) (14). Figure 1. Ultrasound images of colorectal hepatic metastases. Note that these metastases may be isoechoic (A) or with mixed echogenicity (B). Also note the hypoechoic halo around them. Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 21 The invasive CT arterial portography, which is a sensitive but less specific imaging technique, is used less nowadays with the availability of high-quality MDCT. In our institution, 64-detector CT scanners are currently used for hepatic imaging. A 64-detector CT scanner allows thin (0.6-mm) collimation and small (0.5-mm) reconstruction intervals, generating true isotropic volumetric data sets, superior 3D image reconstruction and volume-rendering. Contrast enhancement typically is achieved using 120– 150 mL (2 mL/kg) of nonionic contrast media injected IV, with a power injector, at a rate of 3 mL per second. Scan delay is 20–25 seconds and 60–65 seconds for hepatic arterial phase and portal venous phase, respectively. Positive oral contrast is not administered in such cases because it may degrade image reconstruction. In these cases, 750–1,000 mL of water is recommended as a negative contrast agent. All CT imaging data, in the original resolution of 512 × 512, are sent from the scanner to a freestanding workstation for post-processing (In Space software, Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, Pennsylvania). Multiplanar volume-rendering allows the best approach for visualization of the liver compared with other rendering algorithms (such as multiplanar reconstruction and maximum intensity projection), because this algorithm uses all the attenuation information in any given slab of tissue and real-time adjustments can be performed to accentuate the hepatic vasculature and parenchyma (12). Figure 2. Contrast-enhanced axial computed tomography images of the liver demonstrating a single large colorectal hepatic metastasis in the late arterial phase (A) and portal venous phase (B). Note that the metastasis is better visualized on the portal venous phase, when there is high contrast between them and the enhanced surrounding hepatic parenchyma. Rim enhancement is also visible in the late arterial phase. 22 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients Magnetic Resonance Imaging MRI produces images with better contrast-to-noise ratio than does CT. Improvements in contrast agents, with the development of hepatocytespecific contrast agents with biliary excretion, like gadoxetate disodium (Eovist, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc, Tarrytown, NY) and gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance, Bracco, Milan, Italy), and Kupffer cell-specific superparamagnetic iron oxide particles (SPIO) coupled with higher magnetic field strength advancements in gradient performance, coil design, and MRI software, permit faster imaging with improved spatial resolution (15). Moreover, the introduction of new pulse sequences and techniques, such as diffusion-weighted imaging, parallel imaging, and line scan imaging or magnetic resonance spectroscopy, have made tissue characterization in a molecular level possible (16). Meta-analyses of published data have shown that the average sensitivity of detection of colorectal hepatic metastases improved from 60% (non-contrast MRI) to 73% when SPIO contrast was used and 78% when gadolinium-based contrast was used (13). One prospective study showed that SPIO-enhanced MRI with regard to the detection of liver metastases (mean 94.5%) was significantly more sensitive than that of MDCT (mean 80.0%) (P <0.05) (17). The limitations of MRI are the relatively long scan time and multiple imaging sequences that are needed for complete evaluation, as well as low sensitivity for detecting extrahepatic disease. At MRI, most colorectal carcinoma liver metastases have a targetlike appearance. The lesions have predominantly low signal intensity on T1-weighted images and moderately high signal intensity on T2weighted images with fat suppression. On T2-weighted images, the internal tumor anatomy has a target-like configuration. After administration of gadolinium, most colorectal metastases show an irregular continuous ring-shaped (as opposed to the broken ring or peripheral nodular enhancement of hemangioma) enhancement in the arterial phase. This ring-shaped enhancement represents the vascularized growing edge of the lesion. In the portal venous and delayed phases, metastases often show washout in the outer parts with progressive enhancement toward the center of the lesions (Figure 3). In our institution, a typical MRI protocol in a 1.5-T MR unit and a phased-array torso coil includes T2-weighted fast spin-echo images (matrix size, 256 × 256; slice thickness, 8 mm; interslice gap, 2 mm; repetition time, 5,000 milliseconds; echo time, 100 milliseconds; receive bandwidth, 32 kHz), and breath-hold unenhanced and contrast medium-enhanced (0.1 mmol/kg IV gadolinium-based contrast medium) T1-weighted three- Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 23 Figure 3. Gadolinium-enhanced axial T1-weighted magnetic resonance images of the same patient as in Figure 2. Note the ring-shaped peripheral enhancement in both arterial (A) and portal venous phases (B). This ringshaped enhancement represents the vascularized growing edge of the lesion. In the portal venous phase, note the progressive enhancement toward the center of the lesion. dimensional fat-suppressed spoiled gradient-echo images (field of view, 320–400 mm; matrix, 192 × 160; slice thickness, 4–6 mm; repetition time, 5.1 milliseconds; TE echo time, 1.2 milliseconds; receive bandwidth, 64 kHz; flip angle, 15°) in the arterial phase (20 seconds) and portal venous phase (60 seconds). 18F Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography A number of studies addressed the added value of 18F FDG-PET in staging patients eligible for surgical resection of liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma, aiming at better identifying those patients who will benefit from resection and preventing laparotomy in those that will not (7,13,18,19). The strength of FDG-PET imaging is its high sensitivity in detecting metastatic lesions, particularly when CT and PET interpretation can be combined. However, limitations of FDG-PET are largely due to lower spatial resolution than CT and MRI, poor sensitivity for detection of lesions less than 1 cm and mucinous lesions, as well as the nonspecificity of positive findings. In the absence of randomized, controlled clinical trials, traditional meta-analyses have not been performed. Two initial review studies 24 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients showed an average sensitivity of approximately 75% in detecting hepatic metastases, but FDG-PET imaging improved detection of extrahepatic disease and changed the treatment plan on the average of 29% (18,19). A more recent study, comparing helical CT, MRI, and FDGPET in the detection of colorectal liver metastases, showed that the sensitivities on a per-patient basis were 64.7%, 75.8%, and 94.6% respectively (13). These studies concluded that FDG-PET is the most sensitive imaging method of detecting hepatic colorectal metastases. Another recent study with PET/CT has shown improvement of sensitivity of lesion detection over PET alone from 75% to 89% (20). Recent reports, however, have questioned the real sensitivity of FDG-PET and consider MRI and MDCT more sensitive than FDG-PET in detecting individual small liver metastases, mostly after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (14,21). Moreover, FDG-PET/CT sensitivity is lowered by neoadjuvant chemotherapy and MDCT seems to be more sensitive than FDG-PET in detecting colorectal metastases following neo-adjuvant therapy (21). Recently, a multidisciplinary expert panel of oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear physicians with expertise in PET/CT developed recommendations on the use of 18F FDG-PET in oncology practice and determined the suitability of 18F FDG-PET in the management of cancer (22). Regarding the management of patients with colorectal metastases, the panel concluded that 18F FDG-PET should be used routinely in addition to conventional imaging in the preoperative diagnostic workup of patients with potentially resectable hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. The panel found moderate evidence that the use of PET will likely improve important healthcare outcomes and concluded that PET is beneficial, mostly by avoiding futile surgeries. In addition to the potential for improved lesion detection, the intensity of FDG uptake may correlate with tumor behavior and patient outcome. In some malignancies, such as lung and esophageal cancer, the intensity of FDG uptake is an independent predictor of clinical outcome (23,24). Investigation is ongoing to determine whether FDG uptake may correlate to patient prognosis and whether response to chemotherapy as detected by PET scanning may also correlate with patient outcome. Although much of the published evidence supporting the use of PET imaging in colorectal metastases focuses on FDG-PET, it is now well recognized that integrated FDG-PET/CT may provide superior information and is the modality of choice wherever the resources are available. Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 25 In our institution, for the PET portion of PET/CT studies, all patients fast at least 4 hours before the PET acquisition and receive an IV injection of approximately 555 MBq (15 mCi) of 18F-FDG. The blood glucose level is measured immediately before 18F-FDG injection and must be <200 mg/dL. About 45–60 minutes following the 18F-FDG uptake phase, emission data are acquired at five to seven bed positions, typically from the base of the skull through the midthigh (722.5- to 1,011.5-mm coverage, identical to the CT protocol). The acquisition time is 5 minutes at each bed position (35 scanning planes, 14.6-cm longitudinal field of view, and 1-slice overlap). Images are reconstructed with an 8-mm gaussian filter using a 128 × 128 matrix. PET images are reconstructed using CT for attenuation correction with the ordered-subset expectation maximization iterative reconstruction algorithm. Images without attenuation correction are obtained as well. Morphologic and Functional Imaging Assessment for Surgical Eligibility Hepatic Involvement Because the presence of multiple colorectal metastases does not preclude curative treatment, it is important to detect and characterize the liver lesions with the best possible imaging modality. For the initial detection and characterization of colorectal hepatic metastases, we recommend MRI due to the high sensitivity and better discrimination between small liver metastases and cysts compared to MDCT. Number of Tumors Initial studies emphasized the association between the number of hepatic metastases and patient survival. Many surgeons interpreted these data to indicate four or more lesions as a relative contraindication to hepatic resection. More recent studies, however, reported that an R0 (i.e., microscopically negative) resection or the response to preoperative chemotherapy were more robust factors in predicting long-term survival than the number of hepatic metastases (25). These data suggest that higher tumor numbers should not be used to deny patients a potentially curative resection. 26 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients Size of Tumors Tumor size measurements are routinely required for all cancer patients and should be highly consistent, reproducible, and objective. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were introduced in 2000, as an effort to replace the previously established World Health Organization (WHO) criteria of measuring tumor response to treatment (26). The comparison between the RECIST and WHO evaluation methods is listed in Table 1 and Figure 4. Currently, there is an urgent need for the development and update of these criteria because recent imaging techniques allow us to measure not only tumor morphology, but also tumor function. Tumor size of potentially resectable colorectal metastases has been studied as a prognostic factor with conflicting results (5). Currently, the size of hepatic metastases cannot be accepted as a criterion for determining resectability. Size may only affect the surgeon’s ability to gain negative margins or to leave an adequate remnant. Widespread use of MDCT, MRI, and post-image processing procedures have enabled radiologists to accurately obtain volumetric (three-dimensional [3D]) measurements. Ercolani et al. reported that the total tumor volume of liver metastases had a stronger influence on survival than did number or location of individual metastases (27). The long-term outcome was significantly better for patients who had multiple and/or bilobar metastases with a total tumor volume of less than 125 cm3 than for patients who had single metastasis and total tumor volume more than 380 cm3. Intrahepatic Tumor Distribution Initially, bilobar metastases were considered as a contraindication for hepatic resection. The prognostic significance of bilobar distribution of multiple metastases has been controversial over time, and some studies reported bilobar distribution as a poor prognostic factor, whereas others suggested that a bilobar distribution of nodules does not affect overall survival (28). If complete resection of the metastases can be achieved with tumorfree surgical margins (R0 resection) while maintaining a sufficient volume of residual liver, the bilobar distribution of metastases should not be considered a contraindication for surgery. Tumor-Free Margin The radiologic margin may be defined as the smallest distance between the metastasis located closest to a venous structure and the median hepatic vein. This can be measured by ultrasound or CT. A recent study comparing the radiologic preoperative margins to the pathologic post- Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 27 Table 1. Comparison of evaluation methods and definitions of lesion and response categories in the RECIST and WHO criteria Criterion RECIST WHO Measurable lesions Lesions that can be measured in at least one dimension; the longest diameter is ≥20 mm at non-spiral CT and ≥10 mm at spiral CT Longest diameter in the axial plane Bidimensional measurable lesion; no minimal diameter restrictions Measurement method Response evaluation Response category CR PR SD PD Target lesions, maximum of five lesions per organ, 10 lesions total Disappearance of all lesions; confirmed at 4 wks ≥30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameters of target lesions, with the baseline measurements taken as a reference; confirmed at 4 wks Neither PR nor PD criteria met ≥20% increase in the sum of the longest diameters of target lesions, with the smallest sum of the longest diameters recorded since treatment started taken as the reference; appearance of new lesions; or unequivocal progression of non-target lesions Product of the longest diameter and the greatest perpendicular diameter Number of lesions not specified Disappearance of all lesions, confirmed at 4 wks ≥50% decrease in target lesions. Without a 25% increase in any target lesion; confirmed at 4 wks Neither PR nor PD criteria met ≥25% increase in the size of measurable lesions; appearance of new lesions; or unequivocal progression of nontarget lesions CR = complete response, CT = computed tomography, PD = progressive disease, PR = partial response, RECIST = Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, SD = stable disease, WHO = World Health Organization. 28 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients Figure 4. Contrast-enhanced axial computed tomography images of the liver demonstrating measurements of a single, large, colorectal hepatic metastasis in the portal venous phase (same patient as in Figures 2 and 3). (A) demonstrates measurements according to World Health Organization (bidimensional measurements of a tumor) and (B) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (longest diameter measurements of a tumor) guidelines. operative ones is the only one in the literature dealing with this subject. The study showed that the median pathology tumor-free excision margin was significantly different from the tumor-free margin measured on preoperative imaging (29). This difference was partly the result of the transection and partly the result of technical deviations in relation to the ideal resection line. The study concluded that the liver surgeon must consider that roughly a 5- to 8-mm tumor-free margin will disappear during hepatectomy when comparing measurements on the basis of preoperative imaging versus tumor-free specimen margins. If the histologically assessed minimum 2-mm tumor-free margin is added, the surgeon must plan to have a 7- to 10-mm tumor-free margin on preoperative imaging. However, few technical solutions exist that would enable the surgeon to increase the safety margin in borderline cases. Vascular Invasion Assessment of vascular invasion is critical when deciding the appropriate surgical strategy in patients with liver metastases. Tumoral infiltration of both the right portal vein and left portal vein (LPV) or the three hepatic veins are a contraindication to surgical resection, and these patients should undergo neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and re-evaluation with further imaging (30) (Figure 5). Vascular infiltration of portal or hepatic vascular structures of one lobe is not a contraindication to surgery, although it carries a poor prognosis. Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 29 Figure 5. Color Doppler ultrasound images of a single colorectal hepatic metastasis (A, C) with tumoral infiltration of the main (A) and left (B) portal veins. Volumetrics The hepatic functional reserve may be evaluated by measuring the volume of the future remnant liver and assessing the preoperative liver function. Patients who have bilobar metastases often require either extended hepatectomies or multiple resections and therefore are at risk of developing postoperative liver failure. Although the normal liver tolerates removal of up to 60%–70% of its volume, the extent to which the liver parenchyma may be resected in patients who have chemotherapy-associated steatohepatitis has not been clearly defined. Imaging reconstruction techniques in three dimensions are mandatory to evaluate the total volume of the tumors and the volume of non-tumorous liver. 3D reconstruction also clearly shows the relationship between vessels and the tumors and enables the surgeon to determine a better operative strategy. 3D CT has been shown to be the most adequate procedure for measuring liver volume (Figures 6–8). When the volume of the future remnant liver is less than 40% or when the ratio of remnant liver volume to body weight is less than 0.5%, portal vein embolization (PVE) or two-stage hepatectomy has been recommended to improve the safety of the procedure. 30 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients Figure 6. Three-dimensional computed tomography volumetrics of the right lobe (A) and of segments I/II/III (B). Figure 7. Computed tomography axial image of the liver with threedimensional volume rendered (colored) view of the left hepatic lobe. Figure 8. Computed tomography coronal view of the liver with threedimensional volume rendered (colored) view of the left hepatic lobe. Also note the multiple hepatic metastases in the right lobe. Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 31 Extrahepatic Involvement Involvement of Lymph Nodes in the Hepatic Pedicle Several series have reported the prevalence of hepatic lymph node involvement to range from 3% to 33% (28). The management of these patients remains controversial (28). There are two opposite strategies: to consider lymph node involvement as generalized disease contraindicating a hepatic resection or to try to achieve a radical resection including the extrahepatic locations and perform a lymphadenectomy as in the case of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hilar lymph nodes may be preoperatively identified if they are large enough, but in most cases their small size precludes an adequate preoperative diagnosis. Other Sites In patients coming to laparotomy for possible resection of hepatic metastases, one of the most common causes of unresectability is previously unsuspected peritoneal or extrahepatic spread. The presence of extrahepatic disease (except pulmonary metastases) traditionally has been considered a contraindication to hepatic resection (31). However, significant advances in surgical techniques and improvement in postoperative support during the past decade have led to the extension of the criteria of resectability. At least two surgical teams have reported encouraging results in patients treated for liver metastases and concomitant peritoneal carcinomatosis (32,33). Another study showed that the total number of extrahepatic metastases had a greater prognostic impact than their location. These results seem to suggest that the prognosis is determined by the ability to achieve optimal cytoreduction and not by the disease localization. This approach, however, seems justified only for surgical teams experienced in both hepatobiliary surgery and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. FDG-PET has been universally suggested as the most accurate modality for the detection of extrahepatic disease. FDG-PET can accurately detect malignant mesenteric nodules, peritoneal carcinomatosis, retroperitoneal, lung and bone metastases, pancreatic involvement, and recurrence at the primary site. Imaging Assessment for Surgical Planning As liver resections become more complicated, the importance of preoperative planning of surgery is accentuated. Knowledge of segmental 32 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients anatomy described by Couinaud is elementary when evaluating relation of the tumor(s) to major blood vessels (34). The liver segment borders are relatively difficult to determine during the operation. Only the borders of segments I and IV are readily visible without radiology. In addition, the individual anatomy varies, which is particularly important to discover when planning resection. Moreover, segmental branches should be identified to preserve liver tissue. Hepatic Anatomy The liver is divided into an anatomic right and a left hemi liver. The right hemi liver is divided into two sectors. Each sector has two segments: right anteromedial sector—segment V anteriorly and segment VIII posteriorly; right posterolateral sector—segment VI anteriorly and VII posteriorly. The left portal scissura divides the left liver into two sectors: anterior and posterior. Left anterior sector consists of two segments: segment IV, which is the anterior part of quadrate lobe and segment III, which is the anterior part of anatomic left lobe. Segment IV and segment III are separated by the left hepatic fissure or umbilical fissure. The left posterior sector consists of only one segment, II, which forms the posterior part of left lobe (34). Hepatic Arterial Anatomy All surgical techniques depend on the spatial relationship of the arteries feeding the tumor(s), as well as the presence of arterial variants to the tumor(s) and the involved surrounding hepatic parenchyma. Therefore, it is essential for the surgeon to be aware of the relevant hepatic anatomy, so as to prevent hepatic injury secondary to liver and biliary ischemia and to ensure complete tumor-free resection margins. Vascular anatomic variants should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (15). Hepatic arterial variants such as the origin of the entire hepatic trunk off the superior mesenteric artery or the left gastric artery (LGA) require additional surgical steps. In up to 25% of cases the right hepatic artery arises from the superior mesenteric artery. Likewise, 25% have a left hepatic artery (LHA) completely replaced by a branch from the LGA (Figure 9). The presence of multiple arteries increases the complexity of dissection and should always be appreciated. In most cases these can be readily identified on preoperative imaging. Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 33 Figure 9. Magnetic resonance angiography of the celiac axis (A), demonstrating a common trunk of the left hepatic and gastroduodenal arteries and a very short common hepatic artery. In this case, the patient has a small colorectal hepatic metastasis in the left lobe (B) and this anatomic information is valuable for surgical planning. GDA = gastroduodenal artery, LHA = left hepatic artery, RHA = right hepatic artery, SMA = superior mesenteric artery. The Michel classification may be used to assist for the preoperative surgical planning (35). In Michel type II variant anatomy, surgical technique must be modified for tumors in the left lobe. In such scenarios, the LHA should be ligated at the point where it branches off from the left gastric artery. In Michel type III variant anatomy, the surgical technique must be modified if right hepatectomy is planned. In type IV, the surgical technique must be modified whether 34 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients the lesion affects the right or left lobe. In type V, if the lesion affects the left lobe, the accessory LHA must be ligated from the LGA to avoid excessive hemorrhage. In type VI, if the lesion affects the right lobe, ligation of the accessory right hepatic artery must be considered. In type VII, additional surgical steps must be taken regardless of lesion location. In type VIII, modification of technique is required depending on which replaced artery is present, and additional ligating procedures are required depending on which accessory artery is present. In types IX and X, modification of technique is required because the entire hepatic trunk is replaced. Hepatic Venous Anatomy Hepatic venous variants should also be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (15). Their spatial relationship to the tumor(s) and surrounding parenchyma should be preoperatively recorded to prevent hepatic ischemia and venous congestion and to ensure complete tumor-free resection margins. For right lobe resection, the middle hepatic vein (MHV) and left hepatic vein should be preserved to prevent parenchymal damage to the remnant liver. For left lateral segment resection, the right hepatic vein and MHV should be left intact to prevent parenchymal damage to the remnant liver, whereas the left hepatic vein should be resected at or above the confluence of the MHV. In the case of a right hepatectomy, the presence of accessory inferior hepatic veins, which usually drain segments V and VI directly into the inferior vena cava, requires additional surgical steps to be clamped or ligated. In the case of left hepatectomy, the presence of a large tributary vein draining segment VIII into the MHV may complicate surgery in cases of inadvertent resection of the MHV, with impairment of segment VIII venous drainage and subsequent congestion, ischemia, and atrophy (35). Depending on the location of the tumor, vascular variants can sometimes be useful to perform unusual partial hepatectomies, to maintain sufficient hepatic tissue and tumor-free resection margins without impairing vascular drainage and supply to the remainder of the liver. For example, a tumor located in segment VII, in a patient with an accessory right inferior hepatic vein, draining more than 40 mm from the confluence of the main right hepatic vein with the inferior vena cava, can be safely resected without taking away the posteriorinferior segment (35). Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 35 Portal Venous Anatomy Data concerning the portal venous anatomy is also crucial for presurgical planning (15). In patients with trifurcation of the portal vein (~6%), in which the right anterior portal vein originates from the portal vein directly, resection of the LPV proximal to the origin of the right anterior portal vein would compromise the portal perfusion of segments IV, V, and VIII, resulting in segmental ischemia and subsequent atrophy. Rarely, in case of a congenital absence of the LPV, a right branch coursing through the right lobe to supply the entire left lobe may be seen. Portal inflow for segment IV can arise from the right side or left side and must be accurately delineated prior to resection to avoid inadvertent ischemia. This is perhaps most important during resections of segment IV. In some patients, both the right portal vein and LPV supply segment VIII. Thus, in cases of tumor in segment VIII, both branches must be ligated to avoid excessive blood loss. If the tumor surrounds the two branches, 3D reconstruction enables the surgeon to plan the precise resecting margin around the tumor and also helps clarify the relationship of the tumor to the veins. Biliary Anatomy Biliary complications are an important cause of major morbidity in hepatic tumor resection, with a prevalence of 3.6%–8.1% and high associated risks for liver failure (35.7%) and surgical mortality (39.3%). It is therefore essential to report any biliary variants or other anatomic features related to the biliary tree (15). One of the most serious biliary complications is bile leakage, which has been demonstrated to increase when the resection is extended to segment I or IV. Anatomic factors account for the higher prevalence of biliary complications after leftsided hepatectomy. Confluence of the right and left hepatic ducts usually occurs in up to 75% of patients. A triple confluence of the right and left hepatic ducts, with the division of the right anterior and posterior sectoral ducts with a left hepatic duct, occurs in up to 15% of patients. In 6%–8%, a right sectoral duct may join the left hepatic duct. In 3%, there may be absence of the hepatic duct confluence, and in 2%, a right posterior sectoral duct may join the neck of gallbladder. 36 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients Evaluation of Treatments That Allow Curative Hepatic Resection As mentioned earlier, current surgical trends have expanded the indications for surgical resection, and the development of new strategies, such as neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, PVE, or two-stage resection, have allowed a larger number of patients to enjoy longer survival. Downsizing of Initially Unresectable Metastases with Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy Approximately 12.5%–16.0% of patients with initially unresectable disease may be rendered resectable following a response to combination chemotherapy. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (usually with an oxaliplatinbased regimen) is considered one of the standard options for multiple colorectal liver metastases to improve complete resection rate and overall survival, and is known to down-stage a proportion of those patients initially deemed unresectable. FDG-PET may provide the opportunity to assess early metabolic response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, and may aid in identifying the most appropriate length of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy required to maximize response before surgery. Responding tumors undergo functional metabolic changes before any morphologic changes can be detected on CT or MRI. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy may also help identify those with biologically aggressive disease who are more likely to relapse after resection. In certain cases, the response to chemotherapy can lead to a radiologic complete response. Although such a response may be encouraging, a radiologic complete response rarely correlates with complete eradication of disease (36,37). With difficulties that can arise during surgery in resecting sites where lesions have achieved a complete response, radiologists should be cautious when reporting complete response. The most important role for neo-adjuvant chemotherapy is to achieve a response that may allow resection when possible. If surgical resection can be performed in a timely manner, there is an increased chance of achieving longer patient survival. Caution should be paid when down-staging these patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, so as to detect and control hepatic parenchymal damage. Oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil have been reported to cause liver toxicity. Types of liver toxicity include steatosis, sinusoidal changes, steatohepatitis, and hemorrhagic central lobular necrosis. Moreover, as Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 37 some patients develop liver toxicity, they get secondary hypertrophy of the spleen and may develop a clinical syndrome similar to portal hypertension, with varices and thrombocytopenia. One should also keep in mind that during neo-adjuvant therapy, there can also be progression in existing sites, and/or development in new sites, should the patient fail to respond to it. Increasing Remnant Liver Parenchyma Volume One of the prerequisites for hepatectomy is the need to preserve enough remaining liver parenchyma. Even when liver metastases may be technically resectable, a functionally adequate liver remnant needs to be preserved to prevent severe postoperative hepatic failure. PVE and staged hepatectomy may achieve hypertrophy of the future liver remnant and make final resection possible. Portal Vein Embolization When the amount of hepatic disease necessitates an extended resection to obtain a curative situation that exceeds 60%–70% of liver parenchyma, surgical treatment is generally contraindicated. Embolization of one side of the portal venous system induces hypertrophy of the contralateral liver lobe (i.e., the future remnant liver). A cutoff point of 25%–30% of remaining normal functioning liver parenchyma after surgery is usually used to indicate PVE in healthy livers. However, 40% of total normal functioning volume should remain in case of previous multiple courses of chemotherapy with anticipated decreased liver function. PVE can be performed by a percutaneous transhepatic approach as well as by a transileocolic approach during laparotomy. The percutaneous method consists of accessing the portal vein via a transhepatic route under sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Several agents, such as fibrin glue, ethanol, gel foam, metal coils, and cyanoacrylate, have been used for embolization, but none of them emerged as superior to the others. After PVE, hepatic volume is routinely evaluated using CT volumetric analysis. This imaging modality enables the surgeon to determine the degree of compensatory hypertrophy of the future remnant liver as well as to re-evaluate metastatic disease. Generally, 4–6 weeks after embolization, adequate hypertrophy (an average increase in functional residual liver volume of approximately 14% of the total liver volume) may enable safe hepatic resection (Figure 10). 38 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients Figure 10. (A) Portal venogram before the injection of n-BCA (n-butyl cyanoacrylate) (glue) in the right portal vein of a patient with initially unresectable colorectal hepatic metastases. In this case, the right portal venous embolization aims to create hypertrophy of the left lobe. (B) Coronal three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed computed tomography (CT) view of the portal and hepatic veins. Note the “cast” of the right portal veins after the injection of n-BCA. (C) Coronal 3D reconstructed CT view of the hypertrophied left lobe 4 weeks after right portal venous embolization. The patient may safely now undergo right hepatectomy. Two-Stage Hepatectomy A two-stage hepatectomy may be indicated when colorectal liver metastases remain unresectable after preoperative chemotherapy due to multinodular, large metastases involving both liver lobes, which cannot be removed in a single procedure owing to a too small volume of the future remnant liver. Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 39 The two-stage procedure consists of two subsequent hepatectomies, and takes advantage of physiologic liver regeneration to achieve radical resection. During the first hepatectomy, the highest number of liver metastases is cleared from the less-invaded hepatic lobe. After regeneration of the future remnant liver, the remaining tumoral tissue in the contralateral lobe is resected during a second operation. To control tumor growth between the two hepatectomies, chemotherapy may be administered, generally starting 3 weeks after the first hepatectomy to prevent interference with liver regeneration. If the estimated future remnant liver volume after the second hepatectomy is below 30% (40% if heavily treated with chemotherapy), PVE can be performed as additional procedure during the first operation. Summary As the number of patients with potentially resectable colorectal metastases increases, so does the need for a multidisciplinary effort to improve these patients’ outcomes. Radiologic imaging provides the basis for the diagnosis, staging, and management of these patients. While imaging techniques are constantly advancing, the need for accurate diagnosis and pre-surgical planning remain steady. Currently, the preoperative evaluation of these patients requires high-quality CT or MRI, as well as FDG-PET, wherever available. The extent of hepatic resection should be guided by systematic integration of data from all imaging modalities. References 1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58(2):71–96. 2. Steele G Jr., Ravikumar TS. Resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. Biologic perspective. Ann Surg 1989;210(2):127–138. 3. Hughes KS, Simon R, Songhorabodi S, et al. Resection of the liver for colorectal carcinoma metastases: a multi-institutional study of patterns of recurrence. Surgery 1986;100(2):278–284. 4. Khatri VP, Petrelli NJ, Belghiti J. Extending the frontiers of surgical therapy for hepatic colorectal metastases: is there a limit? J Clin Oncol 2005;23 (33):8490–8499. 5. Pawlik TM, Schulick RD, Choti MA. Expanding criteria for resectability of colorectal liver metastases. Oncologist 2008;13(1):51–64. 6. Minagawa M, Makuuchi M, Torzilli G, et al. Extension of the frontiers of surgical indications in the treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: long-term results. Ann Surg 2000;231(4):487–499. 40 Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 7. Wiering B, Krabbe PF, Jager GJ, et al. The impact of fluoro-18-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the management of colorectal liver metastases. Cancer 2005;104(12):2658–2670. 8. Scott DJ, Guthrie JA, Arnold P, et al. Dual phase helical CT versus portal venous phase CT for the detection of colorectal liver metastases: correlation with intra-operative sonography, surgical and pathological findings. Clin Radiol 2001;56(3):235–242. 9. Larsen LP, Rosenkilde M, Christensen H, et al. The value of contrast enhanced ultrasonography in detection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a prospective double-blinded study. Eur J Radiol 2007;62(2):302– 307. 10. Wilson SR, Jang H-J, Kim TK, Burns PN. Diagnosis of focal liver masses on ultrasonography: comparison of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced scans. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26(6):775–787. 11. Larsen LPS, Rosenkilde M, Christensen H, et al. Can contrast-enhanced ultrasonography replace multidetector-computed tomography in the detection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer? Eur J Radiol 2007 Dec. 7 (Epub). 12. Kamel IR, Liapi E, Fishman EK. Liver and biliary system: evaluation by multidetector CT. Radiol Clin North Am 2005;43(6):977–997. 13. Bipat S, van Leeuwen MS, Comans EF, et al. Colorectal liver metastases: CT, MR imaging, and PET for diagnosis—meta-analysis. Radiology 2005;237 (1):123–131. 14. Rappeport E, Loft A. Liver metastases from colorectal cancer: imaging with superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO)-enhanced MR imaging, computed tomography and positron emission tomography. Abdom Imaging 2007;32 (5):624–634. 15. Catalano OA, Singh AH, Uppot RN, et al. Vascular and biliary variants in the liver: implications for liver surgery. Radiographics 2008;28(2):359–378. 16. Hagspiel KD, Neidl KF, Eichenberger AC, et al. Detection of liver metastases: comparison of superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced and unenhanced MR imaging at 1.5 T with dynamic CT, intraoperative US, and percutaneous US. Radiology 1995;196(2):471–478. 17. Kim Y, Ko S, Hwang S, et al. Detection and characterization of liver metastases: 16-slice multidetector computed tomography versus superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2006;16 (6):1337–1345. 18. Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, et al. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2000;41(7):1177–1189. 19. Kinkel K, Lu Y, Both M, et al. Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): a meta-analysis. Radiology 2002;224(3):748–756. 20. Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P, et al. Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 2004;240(6):1027–1034, discussion 1035–1036. 21. Lubezky N, Metser U, Geva R, et al. The role and limitations of 18-fluoro-2deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan and computerized tomography (CT) in restaging patients with hepatic colorectal metastases following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison with operative and pathological findings. J Gastrointest Surg 2007;11(4):472–478. Role of Imaging in the Management of Patients 41 22. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP, et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 2008;49(3):480–508. 23. Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Gonen M, et al. Preoperative F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography maximal standardized uptake value predicts survival after lung cancer resection. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(16):3255– 3260. 24. Downey RJ, Akhurst T, Ilson D, et al. Whole body 18FDG-PET and the response of esophageal cancer to induction therapy: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(3):428–432. 25. Kornprat P, Jarnagin WR, Gonen M, et al. Outcome after hepatectomy for multiple (four or more) colorectal metastases in the era of effective chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14(3):1151–1160. 26. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(3):205– 216. 27. Ercolani G, Grazi GL, Ravaioli M, et al. Liver resection for multiple colorectal metastases: influence of parenchymal involvement and total tumor volume, vs number or location, on long-term survival. Arch Surg 2002;137 (10):1187–1192. 28. Jaeck D, Pessaux P. Bilobar colorectal liver metastases: treatment options. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2008;17(3):553–568. 29. Elias D, Bonnet S, Honore C, et al. Comparison between the minimum margin defined on preoperative imaging and the final surgical margin after hepatectomy for cancer: how to manage it? Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15(3):777– 781. 30. Poston GJ, Adam R, Alberts S, et al. OncoSurge: a strategy for improving resectability with curative intent in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(28):7125–7134. 31. Regnard JF, Grunenwald D, Spaggiari L, et al. Surgical treatment of hepatic and pulmonary metastases from colorectal cancers. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66(1):214–218. 32. Elias D, Benizri E, Pocard M, et al. Treatment of synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis and liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006;32(6):632–636. 33. Carmignani CP, Ortega-Perez G, Sugarbaker PH. The management of synchronous peritoneal carcinomatosis and hematogenous metastasis from colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004;30(4):391–398. 34. Couinaud C. Segmental and lobar left hepatectomies; studies on anatomical conditions. J Chir (Paris) 1952;68(11):697–715. 35. Sahani D, Saini S, Pena C, et al. Using multidetector CT for preoperative vascular evaluation of liver neoplasms: technique and results. Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(1):53–59. 36. Adam R, Wicherts DA, de Haas RJ, et al. Complete pathologic response after preoperative chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases: myth or reality? J Clin Oncol 2008;26(10):1635–1641. 37. Benoist S, Brouquet A, Penna C, et al. Complete response of colorectal liver metastases after chemotherapy: does it mean cure? J Clin Oncol 2006;24 (24):3939–3945. 4 Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer Veena Shankaran, MD, and Al B. Benson III, MD, FACP The management of liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC) has drastically improved over the last decade. Due to advancements in surgical techniques, supportive care, and the advent of new systemic chemotherapeutics and biologics, patients with previously unresectable liver metastases are now facing potentially curative resections (1). Five-year survival rates following resection of liver metastases have been reported between 47% and 58% (2–5). The increasing use of chemotherapy to improve feasibility of resection, however, has resulted in significant liver toxicities that have been observed at the time of surgery and pathologic review. Although it is unclear whether these toxicities result in increased surgical morbidity, these drug effects can influence decisions regarding future therapies. This chapter will review the potential risks and patterns of hepatotoxicity in patients receiving chemotherapy before resection of hepatic CRC metastases. ‘Conversion’ versus Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Liver Resection Although the purpose of ‘conversion’ chemotherapy is to down-stage previously unresectable liver metastases to resectable lesions, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for initially resectable lesions can decrease surgical comCME 43 44 Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer plexity, offer an early pathologic assessment of response to chemotherapy, and treat micrometastatic disease (6). In a recent analysis of 1,439 patients, 1,104 of whom had initially unresectable liver metastases, systemic chemotherapy and aggressive surgical intervention resulted in a 5year survival rate of 33%; 12.5% of patients with initially unresectable metastases were amenable to resection following chemotherapy (7). For patients with initially resectable disease, the benefit of preoperative chemotherapy is less clear. In a study reported at the 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, a total of 364 patients with potentially resectable liver metastases were randomized to surgery alone versus surgery and perioperative chemotherapy (8). Although the progression-free survival was not statistically different between both groups, there was a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival in the subset of patients who ultimately received surgical resection. Although these data suggest a benefit for preoperative chemotherapy, it is important to note the increased risk of surgical complications in the patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy, in particular the increased risk of postoperative liver failure in the chemotherapy versus surgery alone arms (6.4% vs. 1.6%) (9). Judicious use of perioperative therapy is important to prevent significant liver toxicity in the face of hepatic resection. Further, as subsequent recurrences within the liver may also be surgically managed, minimization of hepatotoxicity is essential. Due to these concerns, it is recommended that a maximum of 3–4 months (six to eight cycles) of either ‘conversion’ or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy be given before liver resection, as maximal response is usually achieved by this point (10). Patterns of Liver Toxicity Hepatotoxicity has been reported with nearly all of the active systemic chemotherapeutic and biologic agents in CRC. Different agents have been associated with different patterns of toxicity. Steatosis Steatosis is characterized by fatty change of the liver, with evidence of fat droplets within the hepatocytes (Figure 1). Steatosis has been described in relation to factors such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, corticosteroid use, and to administration of various chemotherapeutic agents, including 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + leucovorin (LV), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (11–15). Regardless of the etiology, the pres- Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer 45 Figure 1. Steatosis. In this figure, steatosis is characterized by the presence of fat droplets. (Adapted from Zorzi D, Laurent A, Pawlik TM, et al. Chemotherapy-associated hepatotoxicity and surgery for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 2007;94:274–286.) ence of steatosis has been shown to increase the morbidity of liver resections. In a retrospective analysis of 135 patients who underwent major liver resection, moderate-to-severe hepatic steatosis from any cause was associated with an increase in operative time and blood transfusions (12). In another analysis of 325 patients with steatosis undergoing partial hepatic resections, the presence of marked steatosis resulted in a significant increase in overall complications (62% vs. 35%, P <.01) and infectious complications (43% vs. 14%, P <.01) compared with controls (16). Steatohepatitis Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is a more severe form of liver injury than steatosis, characterized by inflammation and ‘ballooning’ of hepatocytes (Figure 2). Indeed, the risk of steatohepatitis is increased in patients who have steatosis at baseline, as these patients are more prone to oxidative stress and further hepatocyte injury (2). Steatohepatitis also can increase 46 Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer Figure 2. Steatohepatitis. In this figure, arrows represent hepatocyte ‘ballooning’ with evidence of inflammatory cells throughout. (Adapted from Vauthey JN, Pawlik TM, Ribero D, 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.) the risk of postoperative complications; a recent analysis of 406 patients undergoing hepatic resection for CRC metastases demonstrated a significant increase in 90-day mortality in patients with steatohepatitis compared to patients with normal livers (14.7% vs. 1.6%, P = .01) (17). Sinusoidal Injury Sinusoidal injury has been reported following chemotherapy for advanced CRC, typically characterized by sinusoidal dilation, perisinusoidal fibrosis, centrilobular vein fibrosis, and sinusoidal obstruction (2,18,19). Severe cases of sinusoidal injury, resulting in sinusoidal obstruction syndrome or veno-occlusive disease have also been documented (Figure 3). Clinically, patients with significant sinusoidal obstruction syndrome can present with markedly elevated bilirubin, hepatosplenomegaly, right upper quadrant pain, and fluid retention (18). Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer 47 Figure 3. Sinusoidal dilation. In this figure, sinusoidal dilation (outlined by white arrows) and congestion is present, with red blood cells filling sinusoidal spaces (black arrows). (Adapted from Kemeny N. Presurgical chemotherapy in patients being considered for liver resection. Oncologist 2007;12:825–839.) Nodular Regenerative Hyperplasia Nodular regenerative hyperplasia refers to the non-fibrotic hyperplastic proliferation of hepatocytes with characteristic sinusoidal congestion and dilation within the surrounding parenchyma. This condition is thought to arise from abnormal blood flow within certain parts of the liver, resulting in regenerative changes (Figure 4) (20). Although this is a rare condition, nodular regenerative hyperplasia has been reported in relation to various chemotherapeutic agents. Risk Factors for Development of Hepatotoxicity For patients with CRC liver metastases undergoing preoperative chemotherapy, the presence of previous steatosis seems to be a significant risk factor for development of steatohepatitis and other liver injury with exposure to chemotherapeutic agents (16). Increased body mass index (BMI) is another significant risk factor for surgical morbidity, independent of che- 48 Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer Figure 4. Nodular regenerative hyperplasia. In this figure, regenerative nodules are present with lack of fibrosis. (Adapted from Hubert C, Sempoux C, Horsmans Y, et al. Nodular regenerative hyperplasia: a deleterious consequence of chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases? Liver Int 2007;27:938–943.) motherapy (21). Certainly, diabetes mellitus and active alcohol use also increase the risk of baseline liver injury, thereby increasing the risk of toxicity with chemotherapy and surgery. In patients who have a significantly high risk of baseline liver disease, liver biopsy may be considered before hepatic resection to evaluate the feasibility of surgery (2,21). Perioperative Chemotherapy and Resection of Liver Metastases Hepatotoxicity has been described with nearly all of the active agents for CRC. The pattern of hepatotoxicity seems to vary with the individual drug. 5-Fluorouracil and Leucovorin 5-FU/LV remains the backbone of systemic therapy for CRC and continues to form the basis of most combination regimens used in this disease. Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer 49 Although irinotecan and oxaliplatin have recently been implicated in various patterns of liver toxicity resulting from preoperative chemotherapy, 5-FU/LV alone has been associated most commonly with hepatic steatosis. In a study of 27 patients receiving 5-FU/LV for CRC with liver metastases, 47% of these patients were found to have evidence of hepatic steatosis on imaging with computed tomography scan during the course of their treatment (15). In a recent systematic literature review, the development of hepatic steatosis was most commonly associated with 5-FU/LV treatment (11). Although steatosis may be the mildest form of chemotherapy-associated liver injury, clinical guidelines now support the use of additional agents in combination with 5-FU/LV, such as irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and/or bevacizumab in neo-adjuvant or ‘conversion’ therapy before resection of liver metastases; the ensuing liver toxicities are therefore not limited to steatosis (10). Irinotecan Although the addition of irinotecan to 5-FU/LV–based therapy has been shown to significantly improve response in metastatic CRC, the liver toxicities most characteristically associated with this approach are steatosis and steatohepatitis (17,21,22). In a series of 406 patients undergoing resection of CRC liver metastases, 94 patients (23.1%) received 5-FU/LV + irinotecan, 79 patients (19.5%) received 5-FU/LV + oxaliplatin, 63 patients (15.5%) received 5-FU/LV alone, and 158 patients (38.9%) received no chemotherapy (17). Patients receiving the irinotecan-containing regimen had a significantly higher risk of steatohepatitis than patients receiving no chemotherapy (20.2% vs. 4.4%, P <.001; OR = 5.4, 95% CI 2.2, 13.5). This pattern was in contrast to the characteristic sinusoidal injury seen in patients receiving an oxaliplatin-containing regimen. Although the incidence of steatohepatitis was increased in patients with higher BMI, the relationship between irinotecan administration and the development of steatohepatitis was seen regardless of BMI; even in patients with higher BMI (≥25), those receiving irinotecan had a higher incidence of steatohepatitis at resection (24.6% vs. 7.1%, P <.01) compared with patients not receiving chemotherapy. In fact, as previously mentioned, the development of steatohepatitis seen in the irinotecan group was also significantly associated with increased postoperative mortality and postoperative death related specifically to liver failure. In another analysis of 37 patients undergoing resection of liver metastases from CRC, liver specimens were evaluated specifically for evidence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (21). Patients were categorized by the type 50 Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy they had received, with 13 patients receiving no chemotherapy, 10 patients receiving 5-FU–based therapy only, and another 14 patients receiving irinotecan, oxaliplatin, or both in conjunction with 5-FU. Importantly, the majority of the 14 patients in the irinotecan-oxaliplatin group had received irinotecan alone with 5-FU (12 patients, 86%). Patients in the group receiving irinotecan, oxaliplatin, or both were found to have more severe steatohepatitis scores compared with patients not receiving chemotherapy (P = .003). Increased BMI was also an independent risk factor for steatohepatitis. As supported by previous data, the increased use of irinotecan compared with oxaliplatin likely contributed to the higher risk of steatohepatitis. Although the development of steatohepatitis has been shown to adversely affect surgical outcomes, the large majority of patients receiving irinotecan-based therapy do not develop significant steatohepatitis and are therefore unlikely to experience adverse surgical outcomes. In a 2003 study of 108 patients undergoing systemic therapy with 5-FU/LV with or without irinotecan, median blood loss, length of hospital stay, and overall mortality were not increased in the group receiving irinotecan (14). As such, the use of irinotecan in conjunction with 5-FU/LV remains a viable strategy in the neo-adjuvant or ‘conversion’ setting before resection of liver metastases. However, as with other preoperative regimens, continued use of irinotecan-based therapy beyond a maximum of six to eight cycles before resection is likely to increase the chances of toxicity. Oxaliplatin The hepatic toxicities associated with preoperative therapy containing oxaliplatin seem to be unique. Several studies have attempted to better characterize the patterns of injury seen as a consequence of oxaliplatinbased therapy. Although the previously mentioned study by Vauthey et al. demonstrated an increased risk of steatohepatitis in patients receiving irinotecan-based therapy, use of oxaliplatin was distinctly associated with an increase in sinusoidal dilation at pathologic review, compared with patients who did not receive chemotherapy (18.9% vs. 1.9%, P <.001, OR = 8.3, 95% CI 2.9, 23.6) (17). Although the presence of steatohepatitis was associated with an increased perioperative morbidity, a similar negative association was not seen between development of sinusoidal dilation and morbidity. In another recent study investigating the hepatotoxicity associated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, 50 patients undergoing liver resec- Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer 51 tion treated either with 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin using the FOLFOX4 regimen or capecitabine and oxaliplatin by the XELOX protocol were compared with 13 patients not receiving chemotherapy also undergoing liver resection (23). Exposure to either oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy regimen was associated with an increase in sinusoidal dilation compared with lack of chemotherapy exposure (P = .004). Despite the association between 5-FU/LV and steatosis, there was no increase in steatosis or steatohepatitis in the chemotherapy-treated patients in this study. As with the study by Vauthey et al., development of sinusoidal dilation was not associated with an increase in perioperative morbidity (17,23). This same association between use of oxaliplatin in the preoperative setting and evidence of sinusoidal injury on pathology from hepatic resection has been demonstrated in various other studies. In a study by Rubbia-Brandt et al. from 2004, for example, surgical specimens from 153 patients with metastatic CRC undergoing liver resection were examined; sinusoidal injury was noted in 78% of the patients receiving oxaliplatinbased therapy (19). In a recent study of 303 patients who underwent preoperative chemotherapy with 5-FU/LV and, in most cases, oxaliplatin, the patients who were treated with chemotherapy were more likely to have vascular liver lesions upon resection and pathologic review compared with controls (52% vs. 18%, P = .01) (24). Hepatic Arterial Infusion Combined with Systemic Chemotherapy Hepatic intraarterial chemotherapy, or hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) in combination with systemic chemotherapy for the treatment of liver metastases from CRC has been investigated in both the preoperative and postoperative setting. HAI has been most commonly associated with biliary toxicity. In a randomized study comparing HAI (using floxuridine and dexamethasone) plus systemic 5-FU versus 5-FU alone following resection of hepatic metastases, combination therapy resulted in a significant increase in hepatic recurrence-free survival compared with systemic therapy alone (90% vs. 60%, P <.001) (25). However, the addition of HAI to systemic therapy also resulted in significant liver function abnormalities on laboratory assessment (largely reversible), necessitating dose reductions as well as biliary strictures necessitating stent placement. A second study randomizing patients following hepatic resection to HAI (with floxuridine) combined with systemic 5-FU versus observation alone also demonstrated an association between the HAIcontaining regimen and development of biliary strictures requiring stent- 52 Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer ing (26). Development of hepatic abscesses and biliary leaks have also been reported following preoperative HAI therapy (27). Currently, HAI is not used with frequency due to the technical skill required for placement of hepatic arterial pumps as well as the complications associated with this approach. Biologic Therapy and Liver Resection The incorporation of biologic agents, such as bevacizumab and cetuximab, into the standard therapy for metastatic CRC has improved response rates and increased the possibility of curative resections; these agents are being used increasingly in the neo-adjuvant or preoperative setting before resection of liver metastases. Although no studies have definitively associated the use of biologic agents with an increased risk of operative morbidity or mortality, the biologic-specific and cumulative toxicities of these expanding preoperative treatment regimens should be considered. Bevacizumab therapy has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, hypertension, impaired wound-healing, and bowel perforation (28–30). However, there are still very few data regarding the association between bevacizumab administration and liver toxicity at the time of metastasectomy. A recent study by Van Buren et al. investigated the potential role of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in liver regeneration (31). Using a murine model, the researchers injected mice with intraperitoneal anti-VEGFR antibodies or anti-EGFR antibodies before partial hepatectomy or sham surgery. Subsequent liver regeneration and hepatic cell proliferation were measured. In the mice receiving anti-VEGFR, hepatic regeneration, measured by CD105 staining of activated hepatic endothelial cells, was decreased compared with controls. The same was not true in mice treated with anti-EGFR; liver regeneration and hepatic cell proliferation was no different between controls and anti–EGFR-treated mice. Although this study suggests that bevacizumab may impair liver regeneration, other data do not corroborate this finding in humans. In a phase II, single-institution study of 53 patients undergoing potentially curable liver resection for metastatic CRC, patients received biweekly bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine preoperatively (32). Using computed tomography scans and postoperative liver function testing as a marker of liver regeneration, 98% of patients in the study had normal postoperative liver regeneration. Histologic assessment of the liver parenchyma was not performed, however, and therefore, assessment for mild liver injury that was not clinically evident was not reported. A Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer 53 retrospective study reported by Ribero et al. also failed to confirm an association between use of bevacizumab in the preoperative setting and hepatotoxicity (33). In fact, this study rather describes a potentially protective effect of bevacizumab. In this study, 105 patients treated with 5FU/LV and oxaliplatin with or without bevacizumab were analyzed and the frequency and severity of hepatic sinusoidal dilation was investigated. Patients treated with bevacizumab experienced less oxaliplatin-related sinusoidal injury than patients treated with 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin alone (27.4% vs. 53.5%, P <.01). The protective mechanism of bevacizumab in the face of oxaliplatin treatment is poorly understood. Not only has bevacizumab not been shown to directly correlate with liver injury in humans, but it also has not been shown to increase perioperative morbidity and mortality following liver resection. In a retrospective analysis by D’Angelica et al., patients undergoing hepatectomy for CRC metastases were not found to have an increased risk of perioperative complications resulting from exposure to a bevacizumab-containing perioperative chemotherapy regimen compared with controls (34). Similarly, in a study by Reddy et al., 57 patients treated with preoperative irinotecan and oxaliplatin and 39 patients treated with irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab experienced no difference in overall surgical complications (43.6% vs. 38.6%, P >.05) (35). For all patients in the bevacizumab-containing treatment arm, however, a nonstatistically significant trend toward increased complications were seen if bevacizumab was given within 8 weeks of metastasectomy versus ≥8 weeks before surgery (62.5% vs. 30.4%, P = .06). Other studies have also cautioned that bevacizumab should be held at least 5 weeks before surgery (32). Prevention of Hepatotoxicity from Preoperative Chemotherapy As preoperative chemotherapy has greatly improved the resectability of liver metastases in patients with metastatic CRC, it is important to consider the potential hepatic toxicities of the various drugs used in these regimens. Although patients are likely to benefit from exposure to numerous drugs simultaneously, ongoing re-evaluation of resectability and frequent multidisciplinary discussion is essential to minimize prolonged chemotherapy exposure and increased toxicity (2). In patients who have had prolonged chemotherapy exposure before consideration of hepatic resection, preoperative liver biopsy may be helpful to discern appropriate candidates for resection. Careful monitoring of liver function in obese patients with possible baseline steatosis is also essential (2,6). 54 Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer Dosing Chemotherapy in Liver Dysfunction In patients with metastatic CRC with baseline liver dysfunction, there is very little evidence-based data on optimal and safe dosing. It has been shown that infusional 5-FU, capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab may be administered in patients with hepatic dysfunction, whereas irinotecan poses a significantly increased risk in such patients (36). A pharmacokinetic analysis of irinotecan in liver dysfunction, however, did show that an irinotecan dose of 200 mg/m2 would be appropriate in patients with bilirubin up to three times the upper limit of normal (37). Another recent pharmacokinetic study shown that an acceptable dose of irinotecan in patients with liver dysfunction and a bilirubin level up to three times the upper limit of normal was at least one-half of the recommended starting dose in patients with normal liver function (38). Summary Significant advancement in the treatment of metastatic CRC has resulted in the possibility of curative resection and long-term survival in an otherwise fatal disease. The advent of new chemotherapeutic agents and biologics has increased the possibility that metastases could potentially be ‘down-staged’ enough to be surgically removed. However, it is important to consider the potential toxicities of these agents, particularly when used in combination. The development of steatosis, steatohepatitis, and sinusoidal injury as a result of exposure to chemotherapeutic agents has been shown to, in some cases, result in increased perioperative complications and morbidity. An ongoing dialogue between medical oncologists and surgeons is necessary to minimize exposure to hepatotoxic agents while achieving an optimal response before surgical resection. References 1. Khatri VP, Petrelli NJ, Belghiti J. Extending the frontiers of surgical therapy for hepatic colorectal metastases: is there a limit? J Clin Oncol 2005;23: 8490–8499. 2. Bilchik AJ, Poston G, Curley SA, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for metastatic colon cancer: a cautionary note. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:9073–9078. 3. Choti MA, Sitzmann JV, Tiburi MF, et al. Trends in long-term survival following liver resection for hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 2002;235: 759–766. 4. Fernandez FG, Drebin JA, Linehan DC, et al. Five-year survival after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer in patients screened by positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET). Ann Surg 2004;240:438–447; discussion 447–450. Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer 55 5. Wei AC, Greig PD, Grant D, et al. Survival after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases: a 10-year experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:668–676. 6. Kemeny N. Presurgical chemotherapy in patients being considered for liver resection. Oncologist 2007;12:825–839. 7. Adam R, Delvart V, Pascal G, et al. Rescue surgery for unresectable colorectal liver metastases downstaged by chemotherapy: a model to predict longterm survival. Ann Surg 2004;240:644–657; discussion 657–658. 8. Nordlinger B, Sorbye H, Collette L, et al. Final results of the EORTC Intergroup randomized phase III study 40983 [EPOC] evaluating the benefit of peri-operative FOLFOX4 chemotherapy for patients with potentially resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. J Clin Oncol 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. 2007;25. 9. Nordlinger B, Debois M, Praet B, et al. Feasibility and risks of pre-operative chemotherapy (CT) with Folfox 4 and surgery for resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (LM). Interim results of the EORTC Intergroup randomized phase III study 40983. J Clin Oncol 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. 2005;23. 10. NCCN. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. v12008, 2008. 11. Zorzi D, Laurent A, Pawlik TM, et al. Chemotherapy-associated hepatotoxicity and surgery for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 2007;94:274–286. 12. Behrns KE, Tsiotos GG, DeSouza NF, et al. Hepatic steatosis as a potential risk factor for major hepatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg 1998;2:292–298. 13. Donadon M, Vauthey JN, Loyer EM, et al. Portal thrombosis and steatosis after preoperative chemotherapy with FOLFIRI-bevacizumab for colorectal liver metastases. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:6556–6558. 14. Parikh AA, Gentner B, Wu TT, et al. Perioperative complications in patients undergoing major liver resection with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Gastrointest Surg 2003;7:1082–1088. 15. Peppercorn PD, Reznek RH, Wilson P, et al. Demonstration of hepatic steatosis by computerized tomography in patients receiving 5-fluorouracil-based therapy for advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 1998;77:2008–2011. 16. Kooby DA, Fong Y, Suriawinata A, et al. Impact of steatosis on perioperative outcome following hepatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg 2003;7:1034–1044. 17. Vauthey JN, Pawlik TM, Ribero D, 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. 18. DeLeve LD, Shulman HM, McDonald GB. Toxic injury to hepatic sinusoids: sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (veno-occlusive disease). Semin Liver Dis 2002;22:27–42. 19. Rubbia-Brandt L, Audard V, Sartoretti P, et al. Severe hepatic sinusoidal obstruction associated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2004;15:460–466. 20. Hubert C, Sempoux C, Horsmans Y, et al. Nodular regenerative hyperplasia: a deleterious consequence of chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases? Liver Int 2007;27:938–943. 21. Fernandez FG, Ritter J, Goodwin JW, et al. Effect of steatohepatitis associated with irinotecan or oxaliplatin pretreatment on resectability of hepatic colorectal metastases. J Am Coll Surg 2005;200:845–853. 22. Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD, et al. Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2000;355: 1041–1047. 56 Liver Toxicity and Systemic Treatment of Colorectal Cancer 23. Kandutsch S, Klinger M, Hacker S, et al. Patterns of hepatotoxicity after chemotherapy for colorectal cancer liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008 Feb 11 (ePub). 24. Aloia T, Sebagh M, Plasse M, et al. Liver histology and surgical outcomes after preoperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin in colorectal cancer liver metastases. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4983–4990. 25. Kemeny N, Huang Y, Cohen AM, et al. Hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;341:2039–2048. 26. Kemeny M. Hepatic artery infusion of chemotherapy as a treatment for hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. Cancer J 2002;8:S82–88. 27. Meric F, Patt YZ, Curley SA, et al. Surgery after downstaging of unresectable hepatic tumors with intra-arterial chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2000;7:490–495. 28. Bilchik AJ, Hecht JR. Perioperative risks of bevacizumab and other biologic agents for hepatectomy: theoretical or evidence based? J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1786–1788. 29. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2335–2342. 30. Roman CD, Choy H, Nanney L, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factormediated angiogenesis inhibition and postoperative wound healing in rats. J Surg Res 2002;105:43–47. 31. Van Buren G 2nd, Yang AD, Dallas NA, et al. Effect of molecular therapeutics on liver regeneration in a murine model. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1836– 1842. 32. Gruenberger B, Tamandl D, Schueller J, et al. Bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with potentially curable metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1830–1835. 33. Ribero D, Wang H, Donadon M, et al. Bevacizumab improves pathologic response and protects against hepatic injury in patients treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases. Cancer 2007;110: 2761–2767. 34. D’Angelica M, Kornprat P, Gonen M, et al. Lack of evidence for increased operative morbidity after hepatectomy with perioperative use of bevacizumab: a matched case-control study. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:759–765. 35. Reddy SK, Morse MA, Hurwitz HI, et al. Addition of bevacizumab to irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based preoperative chemotherapy regimens does not increase morbidity after resection of colorectal liver metastases. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206:96–106. 36. Eklund JW, Trifilio S, Mulcahy MF. Chemotherapy dosing in the setting of liver dysfunction. Oncology (Williston Park) 2005;19:1057–1063; discussion 1063–1064, 1069. 37. Raymond E, Boige V, Faivre S, et al. Dosage adjustment and pharmacokinetic profile of irinotecan in cancer patients with hepatic dysfunction. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4303–4312. 38. Schaaf LJ, Hammond LA, Tipping SJ, et al. Phase 1 and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous irinotecan in refractory solid tumor patients with hepatic dysfunction. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:3782–3791. 5 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection: Ablation, Intraarterial Therapy, and Radiation Therapy Susan L. Logan, MD, MPP, and Eric K. Nakakura, MD, PhD Surgical resection is currently the most effective treatment for patients with isolated colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Median survival following resection ranges from 21 to 46 months, and 5-year survival rates now exceed 50% in selected individuals (1,2). New resection strategies and improvements in perioperative management have increased the percentage of patients eligible for liver resection. Patients with CRLM who are fit to undergo a major abdominal operation are potential candidates for resection when all metastases can be excised without compromising adequate vascular inflow and outflow, biliary drainage, and hepatic reserve. Reasons for nonresectability include extensive bilobar disease, centrally located tumors, tumors extending to the three major hepatic veins, severely compromised liver function, and poor general health (3). Less than 20% of patients with CRLM are reasonable surgical candidates. Modern chemotherapy regimens have improved median survival up to 20 months in patients with unresectable CRLM. However, longterm survivors are still the exception, and the use of systemic chemotherapy alone remains palliative (4,5). Alternative locoregional therapies CME 57 58 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection were developed to improve local tumor destruction and potentially increase long-term, disease-free, and overall survival in patients with unresectable CRLM. This chapter describes the technical considerations, clinical outcomes, and limitations of locoregional therapies, which are potential alternatives to liver resection for the multidisciplinary management of patients with CRLM. Ablation Cryosurgical Ablation Cryosurgical ablation (CSA) is a hepatic ablation therapy that was widely performed throughout the 1990s. The procedure uses extremely low temperatures to cause tumor destruction. Using a laparoscopic or open surgical approach, a metal probe cooled by circulating liquid nitrogen or argon is inserted into the tumor, and the tumor is cooled to at least –35°C (–31°F). Repeated cycles of rapid freezing and slow thawing create intracellular ice crystals in the tumor, leading to protein denaturation, dehydration, cell membrane disruption, and cell death. The formation of an ice ball around the tumor is monitored with ultrasonography, and treatment is complete when the ice ball has expanded 1 cm beyond the target tissue (5). There are no randomized trials comparing hepatic CSA to resection, other ablative techniques, or to chemotherapy alone. Although limited by small numbers, selection and institutional biases, and relatively short-term follow-up, studies show median survival up to 31 months and 46% 3-year survival after CSA of unresectable CRLM. These outcomes are comparable to outcomes reported for other ablative techniques and surpass those reported for chemotherapy alone (5,6). Despite relatively favorable outcomes, the use of CSA has declined over the past decade. The equipment required for CSA is expensive and cumbersome to operate, and procedure time for repeated cycles of freezing and thawing can be long, particularly for multiple and larger tumors. Mortality rates range from 1.6% to 4%, and overall complication rates range from 15% to 50% (Table 1). Local complications include hepatic abscess, biliary fistula, and cold injury to adjacent organs. The frozen liver parenchyma may also shear along the probe track, causing hemorrhage. Systemic side effects following hepatic CSA include acute renal failure, consumptive coagulopathy, and cryoshock— a syndrome of cytokine-mediated systemic response characterized by fever, tachycardia, pleural effusion, disseminated intravascular coagula- Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection 59 Table 1. Complications of hepatic cryosurgical ablation Intraoperative liver hemorrhage Biliary fistula Hepatic abscess Cold injury to adjacent organs Thrombocytopenia leading to delayed hemorrhage Myoglobinuria and acute renal failure Symptomatic pleural effusion Cryoshock syndrome tion and multi-organ failure (7,8). Most practitioners in the United States have abandoned CSA in favor of radiofrequency ablation (RFA), a lower cost, easier to use, and relatively low-morbidity thermal ablative procedure. Radiofrequency Ablation Basic Principles of Radiofrequency Ablation Currently, RFA is the most widely practiced thermal ablative technique used to treat unresectable CRLM. During RFA, an electrode composed of an insulated metal shaft and exposed conductive tip is inserted into the tumor, and a high frequency alternating current (450–500 kHz) is passed from the tip of the electrode into the surrounding tissue. A grounding pad placed on the patient is used to complete an electrical circuit. The alternating current agitates Na+, K+, and Cl– ions, resulting in frictional heating of the tissue adjacent to the electrode. Cellular damage begins to occur at temperatures of 42°–45°C (107.6°–113°F). Above 50°–60°C (122°–140°F), denaturation of intracellular proteins occurs, DNA and RNA are destroyed, and cellular damage becomes irreversible. Affected cells undergo a process of coagulative necrosis over a period of days after treatment. Tissue temperatures near the RF electrode tip may exceed 100°C (212°F). At these temperatures, tissue microvasculature is also destroyed and vessels smaller than 3 mm in diameter thrombose (9). Maintaining cytotoxic temperatures (i.e., 60°–100°C [140°–212°F]) throughout the target tissue is essential for optimal tumor destruction; however, the tissue temperature achieved with RFA is relatively uniform only within the first few millimeters of the electrode. Beyond this region, 60 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection tissue heating occurs by thermal conduction. The amount of heat that radiates to the surrounding tissue is proportional to the delivered current and inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance from the electrode. Therefore, temperature declines rapidly with increasing distance from the tip of the RF probe. The goal of RFA is to create a zone of necrosis that includes the tumor and at least 1 cm of surrounding normal liver parenchyma. Adequate ablation of tumors larger than 3 cm in diameter requires multiple insertions of a single electrode probe and multiple treatment cycles to create overlapping fields of ablated tissue. Simply increasing the RF current will not increase the diameter of tissue subjected to cytotoxic temperatures because temperatures above 105°C (221°F) cause the tissue near the electrode to carbonize. The charred tissue increases impedance and breaks the electrical circuit, halting current flow and limiting the volume of ablated tissue. Large vessels near the tumor also decrease the amount of heat deposited in the tissue because blood flow within the vessels conducts heat away from the target tissue, an effect referred to as heat sink (10,11). Strategies to Increase Ablation Volume: Probe Design The three U.S. manufacturers of RF devices use different strategies to increase the volume of tissue subjected to cytotoxic temperatures (Table 2). Internally cooled electrodes are chilled by water circulating within a hollow chamber in the electrode. This creates a heat-sink effect that reduces charring, and thereby impedance, in the tissue adjacent to the electrode. The area of maximum temperature is “pushed” further from the electrode and a larger diameter of tissue achieves temperatures within the cytotoxic range. A similar effect may be achieved by infusing saline directly into the tissue through ports in the probe. Normal saline is much more conductive than soft tissue and acts like a liquid electrode as it spreads through the tissue, pushing the current, and heat, away from the probe. Table 2. U.S. manufacturers of radiofrequency devices: probe features Covidien AngioDynamics Boston Scientific Single or cluster electrodes Impedance feedback Internal electrode cooling Multi-tined electrodes Temperature feedback Saline infusion into tissue Multi-tined electrodes Impedance feedback Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection 61 The tissue–electrode interface can also be increased by the use of expandable multi-array electrodes, allowing for zones of coagulation up to 6 cm in diameter without repeated probe insertion. The multi-tined electrodes are introduced through a hollow 14- to 18-gauge needle and deployed stepwise within the tumor. Between each incremental deployment, an ablation cycle is performed until the target temperature is reached, and the cycles are repeated until the target volume has been ablated. Simultaneous placement of a “cluster” of three closely spaced, internally cooled single electrodes can also achieve larger ablation zones in less time than is required for repeated probe placement and sequential ablations. Most RF devices also monitor impedance to reduce charring. Power is applied slowly, then withdrawn when tissue impedance exceeds a given threshold value. The ablation is then either terminated or resumed with a lower level of power. Alternatively, temperature sensors embedded in the tines of a multi-array probe can provide feedback to the power source, which then automatically adjusts the applied power to individual tines to maintain temperatures between 100°–105°C (212°– 221°F) adjacent to the electrodes (10,11). Strategies to Increase Ablation Volume: Inflow Occlusion During RFA, hypervascular tumors and tumors situated near major vessels are subject to perfusion mediated cooling, referred to as heat sink. Regardless of tip temperature or duration of treatment, heat sink significantly decreases the volume of coagulative necrosis produced. Using a porcine model, Patterson et al. demonstrated the dramatic effect of a temporary Pringle maneuver on the extent of necrosis produced near large vessels (12). Average minimum and maximum diameters of necrosis with and without inflow occlusion were 3.0 and 4.5 cm versus 1.2 and 3.1 cm, respectively. Mean coagulation volume increased from 6.5 cm3 without occlusion to 35 cm3 with inflow occlusion (12). Using the same model, Curley et al. showed that inflow occlusion not only increases the extent of coagulative necrosis near major portal and hepatic vessels but also accomplishes this without damaging the vessel wall (13). Techniques: Percutaneous and Surgical Approaches RFA may be performed using a percutaneous, laparoscopic, or open approach (Table 3). Percutaneous RFA is performed under computed tomography (CT) or transabdominal ultrasound guidance. Local anesthesia with conscious sedation, and occasionally, general anesthesia, is needed for pain control. Patients undergoing percutaneous RFA are usu- 62 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection Table 3. Comparison of percutaneous, laparoscopic, and open surgical approaches: advantages/disadvantages of methods; contraindications to each method Approach Advantages Disadvantages Percutaneous Minimal procedural and post-procedural pain Suitable for patients with major comorbidities Shortest LOS (outpatient or 23-h observation) Minimal postoperative pain Short LOS (24–48 h) Direct inspection of the peritoneal cavity and IOUS improve preoperative staging Organs in contact with the tumor can be safely retracted Inflow occlusion possible Simultaneous resection possible depending on experience Best pre-procedural staging Inadequate staging Higher local recurrence Greater risk of injury to diaphragm or adjacent organ injury Laparoscopic Open Inflow occlusion possible Simultaneous resection possible Requires general anesthesia Requires greater skill with laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound (i.e., outcomes operator dependent) Not always possible in patient with prior abdominal operations due to adhesions Generally not appropriate when concurrent major resection planned Requires general anesthesia More postoperative pain Longer LOS IOUS = intraoperative ultrasound, LOS = length of stay. ally discharged home the same day or admitted for observation overnight. To avoid thermal injury to the diaphragm or nearby organs, this approach should not be used for lesions located at the dome of the liver or in a subcapsular region adjacent to other organs or the chest wall. A major downside to the percutaneous approach is the inability to assess both the liver and the remainder of the abdomen for metastatic disease not appreciated on pre-procedural transabdominal imaging. Despite significant improvements in imaging techniques over the past Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection 63 decade, intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) continues to detect a significant number of lesions missed on preoperative imaging. In a study by Wood et al., 12% of patients undergoing laparoscopy prior to RFA were found to have extrahepatic disease not seen on CT scan. The same group performed IOUS on 66 patients during laparoscopic or open RFA and discovered that 38% had occult hepatic lesions (14). In a more recent study, Scaife et al. performed hepatic IOUS on 250 patients prior to liver resection or open RFA, and found that 27% had additional hepatic tumors not detected on preoperative CT scan (15). In this study, overall sensitivity of CT scan was 71% for the 160 patients with CRLM, and steadily decreased as the number of tumors imaged preoperatively increased (15). Until the accuracy of CT scan approaches that of IOUS, percutaneous RFA of CRLM should be reserved for patients who are poor candidates for open or laparoscopic operation. Laparoscopic RFA affords the usual advantages of a minimally invasive procedure, including less postoperative incisional pain and a shorter hospital stay (usually 24–48 hours). Furthermore, this approach improves pre-procedural staging by allowing direct assessment of the abdominal cavity for extrahepatic disease and improved imaging of the liver by IOUS. The procedure can be performed using only two ports, one 5-mm camera port and one 11-mm port for insertion of an articulating 7.5 MHz linear array laparoscopic ultrasound probe. Occasionally, a third port is needed to assist with retraction of organs adjacent to the target tumor or for placement of a clamp for inflow occlusion when the tumor is located near major vessels. The RF electrode is introduced through a percutaneous puncture, and positioned within the tumor under ultrasound guidance. Tissue ablation is followed in real time by ultrasound observation of dissolved nitrogen outgassing in the heated tissue. Depending on the experience and skill of the operating surgeon, most tumors accessible by an open approach are also accessible using the laparoscopic approach. In general, celiotomy is the preferred approach for patients with contraindications to laparoscopy (e.g., patients who cannot tolerate pneumoperitoneum or who have an extensive surgical history and are anticipated to have severe intraabdominal adhesions), and for patients who will undergo simultaneous liver resection and RFA. As surgeons gain more experience with laparoscopic liver resection, however, more combined procedures will likely be performed laparoscopically (16). Patient Selection Patients undergoing RFA for CRLM should have unresectable disease by current standards and limited extrahepatic disease. RFA is contrain- 64 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection dicated in patients with severe liver dysfunction or portal vein thrombosis. The procedure should not be used to treat lesions located near the main bile ducts because they are highly susceptible to thermal injury, which can result in biliary strictures or fistulas. Prior biliary-enteric anastomosis increases the risk of intrahepatic abscess and is considered a relative contraindication by some but not by others if perioperative antibiotics are given. Some authors also consider lesions >6 cm in diameter or greater than five in number a relative contraindication. Occasionally, metastases are distributed in the liver in a way that permits resection of some lesions, while others are not technically resectable but are amenable to RFA. When a combined RFA procedure and resection are planned, the resection criteria described previously still apply (9). Outcomes One of the first studies assessing outcome after hepatic RFA was published by researchers at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (17). The study population of 123 patients included 61 patients with CRLM. A total of 169 tumors with median diameter of 3.4 cm (range, 0.5–12 cm) were ablated. During a median follow-up period of 15 months, two patients with CRLM developed CT evidence of local recurrence. In one patient, the ablated tumor was >6 cm in diameter, while in the other the tumor was situated in a large heat sink between the vena cava and right and middle hepatic veins. For the entire cohort, new hepatic or extrahepatic metastases occurred in 34 patients (27.6%). There were no treatmentrelated deaths and only three treatment-related complications. One limitation of this study, however, was the lack of any long-term follow-up data. In part, this may explain the exceptionally low rate of local recurrence among this cohort (17). Local recurrence rates reported in the literature vary widely, from as low as 2% to as high as 60% after RFA of hepatic tumors. In a metaanalysis of 95 studies published between 1990 and 2004, Mulier et al. examined the impact of tumor size, tumor location (e.g., subcapsular or close to large vessels), vascular occlusion, intentional margin (i.e., rim of normal tissue surrounding the tumor that was intentionally included in the ablation), surgeon experience, and treatment approach on rates of local recurrence after hepatic RFA (18). Of the 5,224 treated hepatic tumors included in the study, 763 were CRLM. Local recurrence among the entire cohort was 12.4%. For CRLM, the local recurrence rate was 14.7%. RFA was performed percutaneously in 67.9%, laparoscopically in 11.6%, and by an open approach in 20.5%. By univariate analysis, the following were predictive of lower local recurrence rate: tumor size <3 cm, neuroendocrine histology, location >5 mm from large vessels and >1 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection 65 cm from the liver capsule, surgical (either open or laparoscopic) approach, use of vascular occlusion, 1 cm intentional margin, and greater physician experience. In multivariate analysis, only tumor diameter <3 cm (P <.001) and use of a laparoscopic or open surgical approach (P <.001) predicted significantly lower local recurrence rates (18). The group from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center also published a retrospective study comparing resection, resection plus RFA, RFA only, and chemotherapy only for the treatment of patients with CRLM (study period 1992–2002) (19). All 418 patients in the study underwent laparotomy and IOUS. The 70 patients assigned to chemotherapy alone had an anatomic distribution of lesions unsuitable for resection or RFA, but no evidence of extrahepatic disease. Chemotherapy was delivered systemically, via hepatic artery infusion pump, or both. Of the remaining 348 patients, 190 (55%) underwent resection, 101 (29%) underwent resection plus RFA, and 57 (16%) underwent RFA alone. The results reported are summarized in Table 4. Keeping in mind that the treatment groups in this retrospective study may not be comparable, overall survival was superior following complete resection; survival was not significantly different for patients who underwent resection plus RFA versus RFA alone. Although survival after combined resection plus RFA or RFA alone was significantly better than survival after chemotherapy alone, by the fourth year of follow-up, the three survival curves converged. It is unclear whether the survival advantage conferred by combined treatment or RFA alone in this patient population will be sustained, particularly following the introduction of more effective chemotherapeutic regimens over the past 5–10 years (19). Table 4. Comparison of resection, resection plus RFA, and RFA alone for colorectal liver metastases Resection % Resection + RFA % RFA alone % Recurrence of any kind Liver recurrence only True local recurrence Extrahepatic recurrence 3-yr survival 4-yr survival 5-yr survival RFA = radiofrequency ablation. 52 11 2 41 73 65 58 63 28 5 37 43 36 — 84 44 9 40 37 22 — 66 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection The results of the ongoing CLOCC Trial (Chemotherapy + Local Ablation versus Chemotherapy), a randomized study comparing RFA plus chemotherapy (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab) to chemotherapy alone should help to better define the role of RFA in the multidisciplinary management of CRLM. Complications Treatment-related complication rates reported in the literature range from 0%–27% overall, and 7.1%–9.5% in large series (20). Post-ablation flulike symptoms are common, and generally mild and self-limiting. Major complications are listed in Table 5. Complications are generally evident within the first 30 days of treatment, but may also present later than 1 month post-procedure. Mortality after hepatic RFA is very rare, ranging from 0%–0.5% in large series (20). Follow-Up Imaging/Surveillance Given the rate of local recurrence, and the benefit of timely re-treatment of incompletely ablated or recurrent tumors, routine follow-up CT scans Table 5. Major complications of hepatic radiofrequency ablation Bleeding Biliary stricture Biliary fistula Biloma Hepatic abscess Cholecystitis Arterial-portal venous fistula Pseudoaneurysm Hepatic failure Ascites requiring treatment Thermal injury to adjacent structures/organs Pneumothorax Symptomatic pleural effusion Myoglobinemia/myoglobinuria Transient renal insufficiency Skin burn from the grounding pad Persistent pain Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection 67 are essential. Although there is no standard follow-up protocol, a baseline post-ablation CT scan should be performed within 30 days of the procedure to verify complete ablation and to help differentiate recurrence from incomplete ablation on future follow-up scans. A reasonable surveillance strategy is imaging every 3 months for the first year, then every 6 months thereafter. The ablated hepatic tumor may have a variety of appearances on follow-up CT scan. Most commonly, it appears as a low-attenuation, nonenhancing lesion covering the region of the tumor (plus a 0.5- to 1-cm ablative “margin” of normal parenchyma). Residual or locally recurrent tumors generally appear as focal, nodular enhancing lesions within the ablation zone (21). Microwave Ablation The latest technology in thermo-ablative therapies is microwave ablation (MWA). Microwave radiation lies between infrared and radio waves on the electromagnetic spectrum, with frequencies ranging from about 900–100 GHz. The microwaves agitate polar water molecules in tissue surrounding the microwave probe, generating frictional heat that ultimately leads to coagulation necrosis. Microwave needle “antennae” have been designed for use in percutaneous, laparoscopic, or open procedures. Compared to RFA, potential advantages of MWA include higher intratumoral temperatures, larger ablation volumes, faster ablation times, ability to perform multiple ablations simultaneously, and no need for grounding pad (i.e., no grounding pad burns) (22). In 2007, Iannitti et al. published results of a phase II trial of MWA for unresectable hepatic tumors (23). A total of 224 tumors with an average diameter of 3.6 cm (range, 0.5–9 cm) were ablated. Thirty-three of the 87 patients included in the study were treated for CRLM. At mean follow-up of 19 months, 19 (58%) patients with CRLMs were alive with no evidence of recurrent disease, eight (24%) were alive with recurrent disease, and six (18%) were dead of disease. The local recurrence rate was 2.7%. Most complications were minor, and the overall complication rate was low (14%). Two deaths were reported several months after treatment, but no deaths were directly attributable to the procedure (23). Recently, a MWA system (Valleylab Microwave Ablation System, Covidien) was approved for treatment of primary and metastatic liver tumors. More experience with this MWA system will help to define its role as compared with RFA for the management of patients with CRLM. In general, desired features of a thermo-ablative technology are listed in Table 6. 68 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection Table 6. Characteristics of an ideal thermo-ablative technology Achieves uniform zone of ablation throughout a predictable radius Achieves complete tumor destruction Few or no major side effects Near zero mortality rate Inexpensive equipment Short procedure time Percutaneous, laparoscopic, or open surgical approaches Short post-procedure recovery time Single probe adequate for any size tumor Ablative changes visible with imaging in real time (e.g., intraoperative ultrasound) Ablative changes readily distinguishable from both normal parenchyma and tumor on post-procedure imaging studies Effective near vascular structures (no heat sink effect) Safe near major vascular or biliary structures Probe tract ablation prevents tumor seeding or bleeding as probe is removed Adapted from O’Rourke A, Haemmerich D, Prakash P, et al. Current status of liver tumor ablation devices. Expert Rev Med Devices 2007;4(4):523–537. Intraarterial Therapy The rationale for intraarterial therapy for patients with unresectable CRLM is based on the dual blood supply to the liver. The normal liver parenchyma derives most of its blood supply from the portal vein; however, CRLM are supplied mainly by the hepatic artery. The hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of chemotherapy will be discussed here and that of radiolabeled microspheres will be discussed in the section on Selective Internal Radiation Therapy. Other strategies that exploit the selective blood supply to metastatic lesions supplied by the hepatic artery are transarterial embolization (TAE) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Hepatic Arterial Infusion of Chemotherapy Floxuridine (FUDR) is the preferred drug for HAI (24). FUDR is converted to fluorouracil in the liver, has a high rate (>90%) of liver extrac- Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection 69 tion, and has a short half-life. These properties of HAI of FUDR result in a 100- to 400-fold ratio of hepatic-to-systemic drug exposure (24). There are unique aspects regarding HAI FUDR (25). Typically, HAI FUDR is delivered via an implantable pump that requires experience for successful insertion. The most common complication of HAI FUDR is catheter occlusion or displacement. Unlike standard chemotherapy, the dose-limiting toxicity of HAI FUDR is hepatic toxicity, which is manifested by abnormal liver function tests but can progress to biliary sclerosis. Although dexamethasone decreases the incidence of hepatic toxicity from HAI FUDR, considerable experience is required for the monitoring and management of hepatic toxicity from HAI FUDR. Importantly, HAI FUDR is a regional therapy, which may produce high rates of control of CRLM but is ineffective for control of extrahepatic disease. HAI chemotherapy alone has largely been abandoned as a first-line treatment option for patients with unresectable CRLM (25). One apparent reason is that HAI chemotherapy alone does not clearly improve survival, despite control of liver disease, due to the development of lifelimiting extrahepatic disease. A recent meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials comparing HAI chemotherapy alone with systemic chemotherapy did not find fluoropyrimidine-based HAI was associated with an overall survival advantage when compared with fluoropyrimidine-based systemic chemotherapy (24). Moreover, modern systemic chemotherapy regimens can obtain a high response rate and survival benefit by treating both the hepatic and extrahepatic disease (25). Currently, regimens consisting of HAI chemotherapy in combination with systemic chemotherapy are being investigated for the treatment of patients with unresectable CRLM and after resection and ablation of liver-only CRLM. In addition, others are evaluating the use of novel anticancer agents and drug combination administered via HAI (24). Transarterial Embolization and Transarterial Chemoembolization There is more experience using TAE/TACE for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases (NELM) than with CRLM. Although favorable response rates and modest prolongation in survival have been reported after TAE treatment of patients with HCC and NELM, the role of TAE to treat patients with CRLM is less clear (26). CRLM tend to be less vascular than HCC or NELM. In theory, there are several advantages of TACE over TAE or HAI chemotherapy. In TACE, ischemic damage is caused 70 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection by embolization and cytotoxicity by chemotherapy. Moreover, when chemotherapy is combined with embolization, increased exposure of tumor cells to chemotherapy results from vascular occlusion. However, there is no clear evidence that TACE is superior to TAE. Although TAE/TACE is safe and well tolerated in patients with unresectable or refractory CRLM, response rates are limited to months, and all patients suffer from disease progression (26). Strategies aimed to increase the efficacy of TACE include the use of degradable starch microspheres (DSM) or drug-eluting beads in combination with newer chemotherapeutic agents, namely irinotecan. DSM provide transient occlusion (up to 80 minutes) of small arteries because they are degraded by alphaamylase in the blood (27). Transient occlusion causes less damage to the arteries and permits repeated administration of DSM-irinotecan therapy. Irinotecan drug-eluting beads therapy offers the possibility of precise control of the release and dose of drug into the tumor bead (28). Ongoing studies may help define the role of these newer therapies in the treatment of patients with unresectable or refractory CRLM. Radiation Therapy The main limitation of radiotherapy for the treatment of CRLM is liver toxicity. More than 70 Gy of radiation is necessary to treat CRLM (29). With concurrent chemotherapy, typically fluorouracil, doses above 50 Gy are effective in destroying CRLM. However, the maximally acceptable dose to the whole liver is only 35 Gy. With advances in threedimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), there is renewed interest in the use of radiotherapy for the treatment of CRLM. Another approach is selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), or microbrachytherapy, which entails the implantation of radiation sources into the tumor using radiolabeled resin or glass microspheres. External Beam Radiation Therapy Due to liver toxicity, whole liver radiotherapy has largely been abandoned as therapy for CRLM. In an effort to minimize the dose to normal liver and surrounding organs and to deliver higher doses to the tumor, partial liver radiotherapy techniques are being investigated. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy permits the selective delivery of high doses of radiation to the tumor by allowing a better quantitative assessment of Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection 71 dose, volume, and risk of complications (30). SBRT entails the administration of a single or hypofractionated high radiation dose (31). The use of SBRT to treat CRLM is similar to the use of stereotactic radiosurgery, known as Cyberknife, which is used to treat intracranial tumors. Until recently, application of this technique to non-intracranial lesions has been hampered by the requirement for complete immobilization of the target lesion. Given the extremely high-dose radiation used for SBRT, “missing” the target and radiating normal tissue is potentially disastrous. Two techniques are currently used to compensate for tumor motion. One approach is to restrict motion of the target by breath-holding or abdominal compression. The second approach is to “track” the target tumor by moving the patient or the accelerator; or alternatively to synchronize activation and deactivation of a stationary radiation beam to particular phases of the respiratory cycle. A primary limitation preventing the widespread use of external beam radiation therapy techniques is due to the nature of CRLM: they are often multi-focal, involving extensive liver volume. Studies are under way to evaluate the optimal role of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and SBRT in the multimodality treatment of patients with unresectable CRLM (30). Selective Internal Radiation Therapy Given the limitations of external beam radiation therapy and conventional brachytherapy for the treatment of unresectable CRLM, SIRT or microbrachytherapy has been evaluated (32). SIRT is the percutaneous administration of radiolabeled resin or glass microspheres into the hepatic artery. One technique involves the use of Yttrium-90 (Y-90) embedded in resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres). Another technique uses Y-90 impregnated glass microspheres (TheraSphere). Y-90 emits β particles, has a half-life of 64 hours, and penetrates tissue up to 1.1 cm. CRLM are targeted by SIRT because they are predominantly supplied by the hepatic artery. The size of the microspheres causes them to be embolized in terminal arterioles within the tumor but does not allow passage into the venous circulation (32). Importantly, significant shunting from the liver to the lung or gastrointestinal tract must be ruled out before patients can be considered for SIRT. Adverse effects from SIRT are typically mild and transient, including fatigue, nausea, fever, abdominal discomfort, and elevation of liver function tests. A recent report by Kennedy et al. describes the use of SIR-Spheres as salvage therapy for patients with unresectable CRLM (but minimal 72 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection extrahepatic disease) refractory to modern chemotherapy regimens (29). These patients were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team and deemed not candidates for surgery or RFA. In these heavily pretreated patients (N = 208), SIR-Spheres alone produced a CT partial response in 35%. They found that the maximal response to treatment assessed by imaging occurred 3 months after treatment. Lewandowski et al. conducted a phase II study of TheraSphere treatment for patients with unresectable CRLM and minimal extrahepatic disease after failure of standard systemic therapy regimens (33). In this study with a limited number of patients (N = 27), the CT partial response was 35%, and the median overall survival was 9.4 months. Most patients died with extrahepatic as well as hepatic disease, highlighting the importance of combining modern systemic therapies with SIRT in the salvage setting. The combination of chemotherapy and SIRT (chemo-SIRT) in the neoadjuvant setting is also an attractive strategy with encouraging preliminary results (34). Patients with unresectable CRLM might benefit from neo-adjuvant chemo-SIRT followed by resection with or without ablative techniques. Further study of chemo-SIRT in the salvage and neo-adjuvant settings is needed to clarify their role in the management of CRLM. Summary The treatment of patients with CRLM requires a multidisciplinary approach to provide optimal care for the individual patient. Surgical resection plus chemotherapy remains the gold standard for potential curative treatment of patients with resectable CRLM. For patients with unresectable CRLM, alternative locoregional therapies combined with systemic chemotherapy appear to increase overall survival and may lead to cure in some patients. Although locoregional therapies are not currently considered equivalent to surgical resection, these technologies continue to improve rapidly. References 1. McLouglin J, Jensen E, and Malafa M. Resection of colorectal liver metastases: current perspectives. Cancer Control 2006;13(1):32–41. 2. Choti M, Sitzmann JV, Tiburi MF, et al. Trends in long-term survival following liver resection for hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 2002;235 (6):759–766. Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection 73 3. Charnsangavej C, Clary B, Fong Y, et al. Selection of patients for resection of hepatic colorectal metastases: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13(10):1261–1268. 4. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350(23):2335–2342. 5. Joosten J, Jager G, Oyen W, et al. Cryosurgery and radiofrequency ablation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31: 1152–1159. 6. Yan T, Nunn DR, Morris DL. Recurrence after complete cryoablation of colorectal liver metastases: analysis of prognostic features. Am Surg 2006;72 (5):382–392. 7. Sarantou T, Bilchik A, Ramming K. Complications of hepatic cryosurgery. Semin Surg Oncol 1998;14(2):156–162. 8. Ng K, Lam CM, Poon RT, et al. Comparison of systemic responses of radiofrequency ablation, cryotherapy, and surgical resection in a porcine liver model. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11(7):650–657. 9. Curley S. Radiofrequency ablation of malignant liver tumors. Oncologist 2001;6:14–23. 10. Goldberg S. Radiofrequency tumor ablation: principles and techniques. Eur J Ultrasound 2001;13(2):129–147. 11. O’Rourke A, Haemmerich D, Prakash P, et al. Current status of liver tumor ablation devices. Expert Rev Med Devices 2007;4(4):523–537. 12. Patterson E, Scudamore CH, Owen DA, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of porcine liver in vivo: effects of blood flow and treatment time on lesion size. Ann Surg 1998;227(4):559–565. 13. Curley S, Davidson BS, Fleming RY, et al. Laparoscopically guided bipolar radiofrequency ablation of areas of porcine liver. Surg Endoscopy 1997; 11(7):729–733. 14. Wood TF, Rose DM, Chung M, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of 231 unresectable hepatic tumors: indications, limitations, and complications. Ann Surg Oncol 2000;7:593–600. 15. Scaife C, Ng CS, Ellis LM, et al. Accuracy of preoperative imaging of hepatic tumors with helical computed tomography. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13(4):542–546. 16. Siperstein A, Garland A, Engle K, et al. Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of primary and metastatic liver tumors: technical considerations. Surg Endoscopy 2000;14(4):400–405. 17. Curley S, Izzo F, Delrio P, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of unresectable primary and metastatic hepatic malignancies: results in 123 patients. Ann Surg 1999;230(1):1–8. 18. Mulier S, Ni Y, Jamart J, et al. Local recurrence after hepatic radiofrequency coagulation: multivariate meta-analysis and review of contributing factors. Ann Surg 2005;242(2):158–171. 19. Abdalla EK, Vauthey JN, Ellis LM, et al. Recurrence and outcome following hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, and combined resection/ablation for colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg 2004;239(6):818–827. 20. Curley, Marra P, Beaty K, et al. Early and late complications after radiofrequency ablation of malignant liver tumors in 608 patients. Ann Surg 2004;239(4):450–458. 21. Park M, Rhim H, Kim WS, et al. Spectrum of CT findings after radiofrequency ablation of hepatic tumors. RadioGraphics 2008;28(2):379–390. 74 Locoregional Alternatives to Liver Resection 22. Simon CJ, Depuy DE, Mayo-Smith WW. Microwave ablation: principles and applications. RadioGraphics 2005;25(Special Issue):S69–S83. 23. Iannitti D, Martin RC, Simon CJ, et al. Hepatic tumor ablation with clustered microwave antennae: the US phase II trial. HPB (Oxford) 2007;9:120– 124. 24. Mocellin S, Pilati P, Lise M, Nitti D. Meta-analysis of hepatic arterial infusion for unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer: The end of an era? J Clin Oncol 2007;25(35):5649–5654. 25. Ensminger W. A role for hepatic-directed chemotherapy in colorectal liver metastases. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(22):4815–4817. 26. Tellez C, Benson AB 3rd, Lyster MT, et al. Phase II trial of chemoembolization for the treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma to the liver and review of the literature. Cancer 1998;82(7):1250–1259. 27. Morise Z, Sugioka A, Kato R, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization with degradable starch microspheres, irinotecan, and mitomycin-C in patients with liver metastases. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10(2):249–258. 28. Fiorentini G, Aliberti C, Turrisi G, et al. Intraarterial hepatic chemoembolization of liver metastases from colorectal cancer adopting irinotecan-eluting beads: results of a phase II study. In Vivo 2007;21(6):1085–1091. 29. Kennedy A, Coldwell D, Nutting C, et al. Resin 90Y-microsphere brachytherapy for unresectable colorectal liver metastases: modern USA experience. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 2006;65(2):412–425. 30. Topkan E, Onal HC, Yavuz MN, et al. Managing liver metastases with conformal radiation therapy. J Support Oncol 2008;6:9–13. 31. Chang B, Timmerman R. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: a comprehensive review. Am J Clin Oncol 2007;30(6):637–644. 32. Welsh JS, Kennedy AS, Thomadsen B, et al. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) for liver metastases secondary to colorectal adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 2006;66(2):S62–S73. 33. Lewandowski RJ, Thurston KG, Goin JE, et al. 90Y microsphere (TheraSphere) treatment for unresectable colorectal cancer metastases of the liver: Response to treatment at targeted doses of 135–150 Gy as measured by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomographic imaging. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:1641–1651. 34. Gulec S, Fong Y. Yttrium 90 microsphere selective internal radiation treatment of hepatic colorectal metastases. Arch Surg 2007;142(7):675–682. Suggested Reading Dilling T, Hoffe S. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: transcending the conventional to improve outcomes. Cancer Control 2008;15(2):104–111. Pawlik T, Choti M. Surgical therapy for colorectal metastases to the liver. J Gastrointest Surg 2007;11:1057–1077. Simon C, Dupuy DE, Ianetti DA, et al. Intraoperative triple antenna hepatic microwave ablation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:W333–W340. 6 Suggested Strategies in the Management of Resectable and Potentially Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer John L. Marshall, MD, and Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA, FACS This final chapter provides common clinical scenarios and suggested strategies for managing metastatic colon cancer. The cases were chosen to focus on controversial or complicated situations. The reader should not use this chapter as official guidelines, nor is it written with that intent. On the contrary, it emphasizes the many different options that exist in the management of these patients so that when the time comes in your own practice to treat such a patient, you have a firm handle on the options available and are aware of the problems and pitfalls that lie ahead. Primary in Place An increasingly common scenario is a patient with synchronous colorectal cancer and metastatic disease. With the advent of improved chemoCME 75 76 Suggested Strategies therapy, more patients are being treated with chemotherapy as the initial modality of therapy. The decision to operate or not is further complicated in patients who have metastatic disease that may be resectable, as operating on both the colon and liver is more complicated and may potentially increase risk. In some cases, the strategy could be to perform the resection of the primary and metastatic disease at the same time. Depending on the location of the primary and the extent and location of hepatic metastases, this may not be possible through a single incision and may not be optimal. In making this decision, there are a few key questions. First, is the need for resection of the primary tumor urgent or not? For patients who present with obstruction or significant gastrointestinal bleeding, the primary disease needs to be resected to stabilize the patient. In this case, the primary resection should be initially performed, either alone or in combination with the liver resection. More often in such cases, given limited bowel preparation, availability of a hepatic surgeon, or complexity of the bowel and liver resection, the colectomy should be performed only initially. However, if removing the primary is not medically urgent, then one could consider initiating treatment with chemotherapy with the understanding that surgery will be done in the future, either as a staged or single operation. The decision about whether there needs to be one operation or two (or even more in some cases), depends on various factors. For patients with low, left-sided, colon or rectal tumors and hepatic metastases requiring complex resections, surgeons will often prefer separate procedures. Although surgeons are increasingly comfortable in doing both colon and liver operations at the same sitting, the potential for increased risk of deep surgical site infection must be considered (1,2). As is often the case, the colon resection and liver resection are performed by different surgeons with the required expertise. In such cases, coordination between providers is important when considering onestage resections. The incorporation of biologic agents, and in particular bevacizumab, has created further complexity in the management of patients who receive preoperative therapy. Concerns about wound complications and vascular events are chief among the potential risks if surgery is performed too close to the administration of these agents (3). Bevacizumab has a 20-hour half-life that often requires more than 6 weeks to clear from the circulation before an elective surgery is performed. One has to time the discontinuation of the bevacizumab prior to surgery. For that matter, one has to consider the impact that chemotherapy would have both on myelosuppression and wound Suggested Strategies 77 healing in the neo-adjuvant setting, as we all suspect this too would have an impact. Therefore, to accommodate these issues, one might consider discontinuing chemotherapy at least 4 weeks prior to surgery. When bevacizumab is being used, this agent can be held for one or two of the last preoperative cycles, allowing 6–8 weeks for it to clear. Synchronous rectal cancer with metastasis brings forward a special set of problems. When patients have both metastatic disease and rectal primaries, but cure is still an option, radiation now comes into play in order to decrease local recurrence rates. There is also the issue of using neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation for patients with rectal cancers as an optimum treatment sequence for treating the primary. This is particularly true in patients who have T3 or T4 tumors in the low- to mid-rectum where neo-adjuvant chemoradiation has been shown to improve sphincter-preservation rates. Therefore, one must incorporate into the overall strategy a plan that may include radiation as well at some point during the treatment. Many different strategies could be put in play here, from initiating systemic chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgical resection of both the primary and metastatic lesions, but this would have to be individualized for the patient. Neo-Adjuvant Therapy One of the more contentious issues in colorectal cancer treatment today is the role of chemotherapy given preoperatively in patients with resectable metastatic disease. Nordlinger et al. performed a pivotal clinical trial that randomized patients between surgery alone versus liver resection combined with perioperative chemotherapy. In this protocol, systemic chemotherapy was administered both preoperatively and postoperatively (4,5). The results of this trial showed an 8% improvement in progressionfree survival (PFS) and no improvement in overall survival. While a benefit was shown, the somewhat modest improvement from chemotherapy in this setting suggests possible differences between stage III and resected stage IV disease. When making the decision whether to give chemotherapy first, one needs to individualize the approach based on the clinical picture. If the patient has a long disease-free interval, had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy, or a small number of metastatic lesions, one might be less inclined to give chemotherapy. In a patient who presents with more 78 Suggested Strategies extensive synchronous metastatic disease, initial chemotherapy addresses the high risk of additional disease earlier, and may identify those with more aggressive biology prior to surgery. By giving chemotherapy to this patient, we may be enriching our chances of finding a patient who is more likely to benefit from the surgery. It is not clear that chemotherapy changes bad tumor biology, but we do not want to miss the opportunity to surgically cure patients who have better tumor biology. This balance between what our bias is with regard to chemotherapy, our bias around disease-free intervals, and our ability to predict tumor biology should all be put into play when deciding whether or not to give neo-adjuvant treatment. One must also consider the risks in using neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. First, excessive preoperative chemotherapy can result in hepatotoxicity that may in some cases result in increased morbidity. This topic is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. Second, a response from chemotherapy may result in the disappearance of one or more metastases. While traditionally considered favorable, we know that radiologic complete response does not often correlate with pathologic response. Paradoxically, the inability to find a lesion intraoperatively may result in worse outcome. Third, the disease may be unresponsive to the chemotherapy, and tumors may progress. But is this really all that bad for the patient? While progressing on chemotherapy is not a good prognostic finding, in some cases it may avoid subjecting a patient to an unnecessary surgical procedure. If multiple lesions are now seen and the patient is unresectable, then it is highly unlikely that there was going to be truly curative resection even at the beginning. So, in some ways, this avoids surgery for a patient who surgery would not have benefitted. However, if tumor progression occurs and no new lesions arise, then this is a patient who could benefit from surgical intervention at that point, as chemotherapy options will be limited. What is the optimal chemotherapeutic regimen and for what duration? Clearly there are no answers to this question at present. Our decisions are mostly based on what patients have received in the past, what their performance is, and their toxicities. Typically, the guidelines suggest giving 6 months of chemotherapy either partly before or partly after surgery (Figure 1), but again, the data do not support this duration. One could make an argument ranging from not giving any chemotherapy at all to giving prolonged combination chemotherapy, followed by a maintenance-like approach. Regardless, the patient with resected metastatic disease is an ideal indication for clinical trials to explore new approaches to the treatment of metastatic colon cancer. Suggested Strategies First-Line FOLFOX + BEV or CapeOx + BEV Good Tolerance to Intensive Therapy Second-Line 79 Third- or Fourth-Line FOLFIRI or irinotecan Cetuximab or panitumumab or cetuximab + irinotecan FOLFIRI + cetuximab or cetuximab + irinotecan Clinical trial or best supportive care FOLFOX or CapeOx Cetuximab or panitumumab or cetuximab + irinotecan Cetuximab or panitumumab or cetuximab + irinotecan FOLFOX or CapeOx FOLFIRI + BEV FOLFOX or CapeOx Irinotecan 5-FU/LV + BEV Cetuximab or panitumumab or cetuximab + irinotecan Irinotecan or FOLFIRI Poor Tolerance to Intensive Therapy _ BEV or CapeOx + _ BEV 5-FU + LV + Improvement in functional status Therapy after first progression as above No improvement in functional status Best supportive care Figure 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines: advanced/ metastatic colon cancer. 5-FU/LV = 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin; BEV = bevacizumab; CapeOx = capecitabine and oxaliplatin; FOLFIRI = folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan; FOLFOX = folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin. Unresectable Liver-Only Disease and Extrahepatic Metastasis Unfortunately most of our patients present with multiple metastases and most will not undergo any surgery. However, “local” therapy is sometimes considered in these patients, knowing that cure rates are low but may offer better outcomes than chemotherapy. These metastases are often in anatomically awkward locations and, in these cases, one should consider tumor ablation (6). This technique has been useful and, although resection remains the gold standard, creative use of these other local techniques should be considered in patients, particularly those who have liver-only metastases (7). Conformational radiation therapy and intraarterial therapies may also be used in highly selective situations. Although far from standard of care, these modalities may also be considered, for example, in patients who have liver-dominant disease and whose liver disease is near life-threatening with few remaining systemic options. Patients with extrahepatic disease should also be considered for resection in some cases, and similar cure rates are seen, although the 80 Suggested Strategies data are more limited. Resection of limited pulmonary metastases has been shown to have comparable outcomes to that of liver resection (8). Resection of other extrahepatic sites is even more controversial, including periportal nodal disease, pelvic recurrence, and limited peritoneal disease (9). It is unclear whether resection of these sites, with or without concomitant liver resection, offers long-term benefit for patients. In such cases, however, the consideration of surgical therapy should be individualized and based on the biology rather than a strict adherence to absolute contraindications by site. The role of incomplete or cytoreductive resection of metastatic disease is unproven. As with the use of incomplete locoregional therapies such as radiation or intraarterial therapy, such an approach should be reserved for palliative intent resections for symptom relief or in the context of a clinical trial. Management of the Radiologic Complete Response One of the major problems that can arise following treatment with our improved chemotherapy is that we are more frequently seeing radiologic complete responses in patients with metastatic disease. The struggle then becomes that surgeons can no longer perform the resection if they cannot identify the metastases. In previous studies where resections were performed in the areas where radiographic complete responses were seen, the consistent finding was that there were still microscopic foci of cancer remaining, suggesting that the surgery was required to truly be curative (10). To avoid the radiologic complete response, it is recommended that surgical therapy be performed early, either as a fixed short course of neoadjuvant therapy in the initially resectable patient or only until resectability is achieved in the responding patient with initially unresectable disease. This is particularly important in patients with smaller lesions or in those who have multiple small hepatic lesions. If your patient does have a radiologic complete response, then many would say the only option is to stop all treatment and wait for tumor regrowth. Alternatively, resection can proceed with removal of the regions within the liver in which the metastases were initially present. Future options may include marking tumors before chemotherapy starts. The counterargument to this is that some patients, in fact, have innumerable hepatic lesions that, after chemotherapy, are reduced to only one or two detectable lesions. The role of surgery in this patient is much Suggested Strategies 81 more controversial, and techniques that are less invasive, such as radiofrequency ablation, should be incorporated, as the long-term cure rate of that patient is quite low. Summary We collectively hope that this has been a useful text for you in the management of patients with colorectal cancer and, in particular, metastatic disease. Obviously, the worlds of cancer medicine and surgical techniques are changing daily. Many of the concepts we brought forward in this book are likely to be applicable to other diseases where regional metastases occur. References 1. Turrini O, Viret F, Guiramand J, et al. Strategies for the treatment of synchronous liver metastasis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007;33(6):735–740. 2. Hamady ZZ, Malik HZ, Alwan N, et al. Surgeon’s awareness of the synchronous liver metastases during colorectal cancer resection may affect outcome. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008;34(2):180–184. Epub 2007 Nov 5. Erratum in: Eur J Surg Oncol 2008;34(4):II. 3. August DA, Serrano D, Poplin E. “Spontaneous,” delayed colon and rectal anastomotic complications associated with bevacizumab therapy. J Surg Oncol 2008;97(2):180–185. 4. Nordlinger B, Sorbye H, Glimelius B, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC Intergroup trial 40983): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008 Mar 22;371(9617):1007–1016. 5. Final results of the EORTC Intergroup randomized phase III study 40983 [EPOC] evaluating the benefit of peri-operative FOLFOX4 chemotherapy for patients with potentially resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. J Clin Oncol 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. Vol 25, No. 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2007:LBA5. 6. Casaril A, Abu Hilal M, Harb A, et al. The safety of radiofrequency thermal ablation in the treatment of liver malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008; 34(6):668–672. 7. Covey AM, Brown KT, Jarnagin WR, et al. Combined portal vein embolization and neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a treatment strategy for resectable hepatic colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 2008;247(3):451–455. 8. Rotolo N, De Monte L, Imperatori A, Dominioni L. Pulmonary resections of single metastases from colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol 2007;16:S141– S144. 9. Royal RE, Pingpank JF Jr. Diagnosis and management of peritoneal carcinomatosis arising from adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Semin Oncol 2008;35(2):183–191. 82 Suggested Strategies 10. Znajda TL, Hayashi S, Horton PJ, et al. Postchemotherapy characteristics of hepatic colorectal metastases: remnants of uncertain malignant potential. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10(4):483–489. ❖ CME Post-Test 1. No clear data suggest that metastatic colorectal cancer patients who are resectable at presentation require pre- or postsurgical chemotherapy. a) b) 2. Approximately of patients undergoing resection of a primary colorectal cancer in the absence of apparent metastatic disease subsequently manifest metastatic hepatic disease. a) b) c) d) 3. True False 10% 30% 50% 70% A clinicopathologic factor that is predictive of patient survival following hepatic resection when treating metastatic colorectal cancer is: a) b) c) d) Female gender Preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level Patency of the portal vein All of the above To earn CME credit at no cost, please visit us online at www.cancernetwork.com/cme CME 83 84 4. CME Post-Test Recent research results showed that any metastatic colorectal cancer patient having more than three or four metastases, hilar adenopathy, metastases within 1 cm of major vessels (e.g., the vena cava or main hepatic veins), or extrahepatic disease absolutely must be excluded from surgical consideration. a) b) 5. Which of the following algorithms allows the best approach for visualizing the liver? a) b) c) d) 6. Hepatitis A infection Perisinusoidal fibrosis Nodular regenerative hyperplasia Steatosis Which of the following statements about hepatic arterial infusion is true? a) b) c) d) 8. Maximum intensity projection Multiplanar reconstruction Multiplanar volume rendering Minimum intensity projection An adverse reaction related to obesity, diabetes mellitus, and use of corticosteroids or chemotherapeutic agents (e.g., 5-fluorouracil/ leucovorin, irinotecan [Camptosar], and oxaliplatin [Eloxatin]) is: a) b) c) d) 7. True False It most commonly has been associated with biliary toxicity There have been no reports of hepatic abscess or biliary leaks following its preoperative use Its ease of administration and safety profile has led to its current frequent use All of the above Radiofrequency ablation of colorectal liver metastases is contraindicated, or should not be used, in patients with: a) b) c) d) Severe hepatic dysfunction Portal vein thrombosis Lesions located near the main bile ducts All of the above To earn CME credit at no cost, please visit us online at www.cancernetwork.com/cme CME Post-Test 9. 85 The preferred drug for hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy against metastatic colorectal cancer is: a) b) c) d) Irinotecan Floxuridine (FUDR) Bevacizumab (Avastin) Gemcitabine (Gemzar) 10. Which of the following statements about synchronous rectal cancer with metastasis is true? a) b) c) d) Cure remains an option Radiation must be incorporated into the overall treatment strategy at some point Preservation of sphincter function is a less important priority than is cure All of the above To earn CME credit at no cost, please visit us online at www.cancernetwork.com/cme ❖ Index Note: Page numbers followed by f indicate figures; those followed by t indicate tables. A Ablation cryosurgical ablation, 58–59, 59t for hepatic colorectal metastases, 58–67, 59t, 60t, 62t, 65t, 66t, 68t microwave ablation, 67, 68t RFA, 59–67, 60t, 62t, 65t, 66, 68t Alcohol use, hepatotoxicity associated with, 48 B Bevacizumab in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 52–53 in metastatic colorectal cancer management, 76–77 Biliary anatomy, assessment of, in surgical planning, 35 Biologic therapy, in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 52–53 Body mass index (BMI), hepatotoxicity associated with, 47–48 C Cancer(s) colon, surgery for, surgeons performing, 4–5 colorectal. See also Colorectal cancer rectal, with metastatic colorectal cancer, management of, 77 Celiac axis, MRA of, 34, 33f Cetuximab, in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 52 Chemoembolization, transarterial, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 69–70 Chemotherapy ‘conversion,’ purpose of, 43 dosing of, in liver dysfunction, 54 HAI of, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 68–69 for lesion reduction in potentially curable patients with lesions too large for reduction, 3 in metastatic colorectal cancer management, before surgery, 76–77 neo-adjuvant. See Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy perioperative, in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 48–52. See also specific agents 87 88 Index Chemotherapy—continued preoperative, hepatotoxicity associated with, prevention of, 53 systemic HAI and, in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 51– 52 for unresectable hepatic colorectal metastases, 44 Chemotherapy + Local Ablation versus Chemotherapy (CLOCC) Trial, on RFA for hepatic colorectal metastases, 66 Chest surgeons, in curative therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, 5 CLOCC (Chemotherapy + Local Ablation versus Chemotherapy) Trial, on RFA for hepatic colorectal metastases, 66 Colon cancer, surgery for, surgeons performing, 4– 5 Colorectal cancer with hepatic metastases. See Hepatic colorectal metastases metastatic. See Metastatic colorectal cancer treatment of, systemic, liver toxicity and, 43–56 Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). See Hepatic colorectal metastases Colorectal metastases initially unresectable, downsizing of, with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, 36– 37 potentially resectable evaluation and staging of, imaging in, 17–42. See also imaging modalities 18F FDG-PET/CT, 23–25 goals of, 18 MDCT, 20–21, 21f MRI, 22–23, 23f transabdominal ultrasonography, 19–20, 20f types of, 17–18 imaging assessment for surgical planning for, 31–35, 33f biliary anatomy, 35 hepatic anatomy, 32–34, 33f Michel classification in, 33 portal venous anatomy, 35 lymph nodes in hepatic pedicle and, management of, 31 surgical eligibility determination for, morphologic and functional imaging assessment for, 25–31, 27t, 28f, 29f, 30f extrahepatic involvement in, 31 hepatic involvement in, 25– 30, 27t, 28f, 29f, 30f treatment of curative hepatic resection in, evaluation of, 36–39, 38f hepatectomy in, 37–39, 38f two-stage, 38–39 increasing remnant liver parenchyma volume in, 37–39, 38f Communication, among multidisciplinary team members, 6 Community-based oncologist, in multidisciplinary team building, 1–7, 4f. See also Multidisciplinary team Index Computed tomography (CT) contrast-enhanced axial, of hepatic colorectal metastases, 28f of hepatic colorectal metastases, 30f multidetector, in potentially resectable colorectal metastases evaluation, 20–21, 21f three-dimensional, of hepatic colorectal metastases, 30f Contrast-enhanced axial computed tomography, of hepatic colorectal metastases, 28f ‘Conversion’ chemotherapy, purpose of, 43 CRLM. See Hepatic colorectal metastases Cryosurgical ablation, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 58–59, 59t CT. See Computed tomography (CT) Curable patients, potentially, with metastatic colorectal cancer, recognition of, 2–3, 2f Cyberknife-focused radiation, as curative therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, 5 D Diabetes mellitus, hepatotoxicity associated with, 48 Doppler ultrasonography, of hepatic colorectal metastases, 29f E EGFR, in liver regeneration, 52 Embolization 89 portal vein, during hepatectomy for increasing remnant liver parenchyma volume, 37, 38f transarterial, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 69–70 Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), in liver regeneration, 52 External beam radiation therapy, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 70–71 F 18F FDG-PET/CT, in potentially resectable colorectal metastases evaluation, 23–25 18F fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F FDGPET/CT), in potentially resectable colorectal metastases evaluation, 23–25 FDG-PET, in extrahepatic disease detection, 31 Floxuridine (FUDR), for hepatic colorectal metastases, 68–69 Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), in extrahepatic disease detection, 31 5-Fluourouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/ LV), in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 48– 49 5-FU/LV, in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 48– 49 90 Index G Gadobenate dimeglumine, 22 Gadoxetate disodium, 22 H HAI. See Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI), of chemotherapy Hepatectomy increasing remnant liver parenchyma volume and, 37– 39, 38f two-stage, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 38–39 Hepatic anatomy, assessment of, in surgical planning, 32–35, 33f. See also Liver, anatomy of Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI), of chemotherapy for hepatic colorectal metastases, 68–69 systemic, in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 51– 52 Hepatic colorectal metastases ablation for, 58–67, 59t, 60t, 62t, 65t, 66t, 68t hepatotoxicity associated with, risk factors for, 47–48 intraarterial therapy for, 68–70 management of chemotherapy in, dosing of, 54 improvements in, 43 intraarterial therapy in, 68–70. See also Intraarterial therapy, for hepatic colorectal metastases radiation therapy in, 70–72. See also Radiation therapy, for hepatic colorectal metastases resection in bevacizumab and, 52–53 biologic therapy and, 52– 53 candidates for, prevalence of, 57 categories of, 12, 12t cetuximab and, 52 criteria for, 10–12, 11t, 11f, 12t defined, 18–19 extrahepatic disease and, 13– 14 5-year survival rates after, 43 5-FU/LV and, 48–49 HAI with systemic chemotherapy and, 51–52 irinotecan and, 49–50 locoregional alternatives to, 57–74. See also Radiofrequency ablation; specific treatments, e.g., Ablation neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in, 43–44 outcomes of, 12–13, 13t oxaliplatin and, 50–51 perioperative chemotherapy and, 48–52. See also specific agents surgical eligibility determination for, morphologic and functional imaging assessment for intrahepatic tumor distribution in, 26 numbers of tumors in, 25 size of tumors in, 26, 27t, 28f tumor-free margin in, 26–28 vascular invasion in, 28, 29f volumetrics in, 29, 30f, 29 survival rates after, 57 systemic chemotherapeutic and biologic agents in nodular regenerative hyperplasia due to, 47, 48f Index nonalcoholic steatohepatitis due to, 45–46, 46f sinusoidal injury due to, 46, 47f steatohepatitis due to, 45–46, 46f steatosis due to, 44–45, 45f toxicity associated with, 44– 47, 45f–48f prevalence of, 9, 17 unresectable management of, 79–80 systemic chemotherapy for, outcomes of, 44 Hepatic pedicle, lymph nodes in, management of, 31 Hepatic resection, curative, for potentially resectable colorectal metastases, evaluation of treatments, 36–39, 38f Hepatic surgery, for metastatic colorectal cancer, 4–5 Hepatotoxicity hepatic colorectal metastases and, risk factors for, 47– 48 preoperative chemotherapy and, prevention of, 53 systemic chemotherapeutic and biologic agents for hepatic colorectal metastases and, 44–47, 45f–48f Hyperplasia, nodular regenerative, systemic chemotherapeutic and biologic agents for hepatic colorectal metastases and, 47, 48f I Interventional radiology, in curative therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, 5 91 Intraarterial therapy, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 68–70 FUDR, 68–69 HAI of chemotherapy, 68–69 TACE, 69–70 TAE, 69–70 Irinotecan, in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 49– 50 K Kupffer cell-specific superparamagnetic iron oxide particles (SPIO), 22 L Laparoscopic RFA, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 63 Liver anatomy of arterial, assessment of, in surgical planning, 32–34, 33f assessment of, in surgical planning, 31–35, 33f venous, assessment of, in surgical planning, 34–35 dysfunction of, dosing chemotherapy in, 54 metastatic colorectal cancer confined to, prevalence of, 9 regeneration of EGFR in, 52 VEGFR in, 52 resection of, for resectable metastatic colorectal cancer, factors affecting, 10 Liver metastases from colorectal cancer. See Hepatic colorectal metastases 92 Index Liver metastases—continued with metastatic colorectal cancer. See Hepatic colorectal metastases resectability in patients with, criteria for, 10–12, 11t, 11f, 12t surgical resectability of, defined, 18–19 Lymph nodes, in hepatic pedicle, management of, 31 M Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), of celiac axis, 34, 33f Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in potentially resectable colorectal metastases evaluation, 22–23, 23f in resection determination for metastatic colorectal cancer, 3–4, 4f M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, on RFA for hepatic colorectal metastases, 65 MDCT, in potentially resectable colorectal metastases evaluation, 20–21, 21f Medical oncologists, in curative therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, 5 Metastasis(es), colorectal. See also Colorectal metastases hepatic. See Hepatic colorectal metastases Metastatic colon cancer, curative therapy for, 1–5. See also Metastatic colorectal cancer, curative therapy for Metastatic colorectal cancer anatomic division of, 2, 2f confined to liver, prevalence of, 9 curative therapy for, 1–5 chest surgeons in, 5 hepatic surgery, 4–5 interventional radiologists in, 5 medical oncologists in, 5 extrahepatic, management of, 79–80 imaging of, 3–6, 4f liver metastases with. See Hepatic colorectal metastases management of chemotherapy in, before surgery, 76–77 surgery in, surgeons performing, 4–5 potentially curable patients with, recognition of, 2–3, 2f potentially resectable, management of factors in, 75–77 radiologic complete response following, 80–81 strategies in, 75–81 prevalence of, 9 rectal cancer with, management of, 77 resectable, defining of, 9–15, 11t– 13t, 11f. See also Resectable metastatic colorectal cancer Michel classification, in preoperative surgical planning for potentially resectable colorectal metastases, 33–34 Microwave ablation (MWA), for hepatic colorectal metastases, 67, 68t MRA, of celiac axis, 34, 33f Index MRI. See Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), in potentially resectable colorectal metastases evaluation, 20–21, 21f Multidisciplinary team continual reassessment of, 7 members of, 3–6, 4f chest surgeons, 4–5 communication among, 6 hepatic surgeon, 4–5 interventional radiologists, 5 medical oncologists, 5 radiologists, 4–5 requirements for, 1–7, 4f strategy for, 6 testing by, 3–6, 4f MWA, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 67, 68t N Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in downsizing of initially unresectable colorectal metastases, 36–37 for resectable and potentially resectable metastatic colorectal cancer, 77–78, 79f for resectable hepatic colorectal metastases, 43–44 Nodular regenerative hyperplasia, systemic chemotherapeutic and biologic agents for hepatic colorectal metastases and, 47, 48f Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), systemic chemotherapeutic and biologic agents for hepatic 93 colorectal metastases and, 45–46, 46f O Oncologist(s), community-based, in multidisciplinary team building, 1–7, 4f. See also Multidisciplinary team Oxaliplatin, in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 50– 51 P PET, in resection determination for metastatic colorectal cancer, 3–4, 4f Portal vein embolization, during hepatectomy for increasing remnant liver parenchyma volume, 37, 38f Portal venous anatomy, assessment of, in surgical planning, 35 Positron emission tomography (PET), in resection determination for metastatic colorectal cancer, 3–4, 4f Potentially curable patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, lesion reduction in, chemotherapy for, 3 recognition of, 2–3, 2f resectability determination in, 3 resectable at presentation, 2–3 R Radiation, Cyberknife-focused, as curative therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, 5 Radiation therapy external beam radiation therapy, 70–71 94 Index Radiation therapy—continued for hepatic colorectal metastases, 70–72 selective internal radiation therapy, 71–72 Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) basic principles of, 59–60 devices for, 60–61, 60t U.S. manufacturers of, 60t for hepatic colorectal metastases, 59–67, 60t, 62t, 65t, 66, 68t complications of, 66, 66t follow-up imaging/surveillance, 66–67 laparoscopic, 63 outcomes of, 64–66, 65t patient selection for, 63–64 percutaneous, 61–63, 62t strategies to increase ablation volume inflow occlusion, 61 probe design, 60–61, 60t surgical approaches, 61–63, 62t techniques for, 61–63, 62t RECIST, criteria for measuring tumor response to treatment, 26, 27t, 28f Rectal cancer, with metastatic colorectal cancer, management of, 77 Resectability, defined, 18–19 Resectable metastatic colorectal cancer defining of, 9–15, 11t–13t, 11f extrahepatic, contraindications to surgery, 13–14 management of factors in, 75–77 neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in, 77–78, 79f radiologic complete response following, 80–81 strategies in, 75–81 surgical resection in patient selection for, 9–10 preoperative evaluation for, 10 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), criteria for measuring tumor response to treatment, 26, 27t, 28f RFA. See Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) S Selective internal radiation therapy, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 71–72 Sinusoidal injury, systemic chemotherapeutic and biologic agents for hepatic colorectal metastases and, 46, 47f SPIO, Kupffer cell-specific, 22 Steatohepatitis, systemic chemotherapeutic and biologic agents for hepatic colorectal metastases and, 45–46, 46f Steatosis, systemic chemotherapeutic and biologic agents for hepatic colorectal metastases and, 44–45, 45f Superparamagnetic iron oxide particles (SPIO), Kupffer cell-specific, 22 Surgical planning, imaging assessment for, in potentially resectable colorectal metastases management, 31–35, 33f. See also Colorectal metastases, potentially resectable, imaging assessment for surgical planning for Index Surgical resectability of liver metastases, defined, 18–19 Surgical resection, for resectable metastatic colorectal cancer, 9–15, 11t–13t, 11f. See also Resectable metastatic colorectal cancer Systemic chemotherapy HAI and, in hepatic colorectal metastases resection, 51– 52 for unresectable hepatic colorectal metastases, 44 T TACE, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 69–70 TAE, for hepatic colorectal metastases, 69–70 Thoracic lesions, resection of, in metastatic colorectal cancer patients, 4–5 Three-dimensional computed tomography, of hepatic colorectal metastases, 30f Transabdominal ultrasonography, in potentially resectable colorectal metastases evaluation, 19–20, 20f 95 Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), for hepatic colorectal metastases, 69– 70 Transarterial embolization (TAE), for hepatic colorectal metastases, 69–70 U Ultrasonography Doppler, of hepatic colorectal metastases, 29f transabdominal, in potentially resectable colorectal metastases evaluation, 19–20, 20f V Valleylab Microwave Ablation System, 67, 68t Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), in liver regeneration, 52 W World Health Organization (WHO), criteria for measuring tumor response to treatment, 26, 27t, 28f Notes
© Copyright 2024