Dataset Information

Efficacy of Thermal Ablation for Small-Size (0-3 cm) versus Intermediate-Size (3-5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Thermal ablation is widely recognized as the standard of care for small-size unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). For larger CRLM safety, local control and overall efficacy are not well established and insufficiently validated. The purpose of this comparative series was to analyze outcomes for intermediate-size versus small-size CRLM.

Material and methods

Patients treated with thermal ablation between December 2000 and November 2021 for small-size and intermediate-size CRLM were included. The primary endpoints were complication rate and local control (LC). Secondary endpoints included local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

In total, 59 patients were included in the intermediate-size (3-5 cm) group and 221 in the small-size (0-3 cm) group. Complications were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.546). No significant difference between the groups was found in an overall comparison of OS (HR 1.339; 95% CI 0.824-2.176; p = 0.239). LTPFS (HR 3.388; p < 0.001) and LC (HR 3.744; p = 0.004) were superior in the small-size group. Nevertheless, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year LC for intermediate-size CRLM was still 93.9%, 85.4%, and 81.5%, and technical efficacy improved over time.

Conclusions

Thermal ablation for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM is safe and induces long-term LC in the vast majority. The results of the COLLISION-XL trial (unresectable colorectal liver metastases: stereotactic body radiotherapy versus microwave ablation-a phase II randomized controlled trial for CRLM 3-5 cm) are required to provide further clarification of the role of local ablative methods for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM.

SUBMITTER: Dijkstra M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10487073 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of Thermal Ablation for Small-Size (0-3 cm) versus Intermediate-Size (3-5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE).

Dijkstra Madelon M van der Lei Susan S Puijk Robbert S RS Schulz Hannah H HH Vos Danielle J W DJW Timmer Florentine E F FEF Scheffer Hester J HJ Buffart Tineke E TE van den Tol M Petrousjka MP Lissenberg-Witte Birgit I BI Swijnenburg Rutger-Jan RJ Versteeg Kathelijn S KS Meijerink Martijn R MR

Cancers 20230831 17

<h4>Purpose</h4>Thermal ablation is widely recognized as the standard of care for small-size unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). For larger CRLM safety, local control and overall efficacy are not well established and insufficiently validated. The purpose of this comparative series was to analyze outcomes for intermediate-size versus small-size CRLM.<h4>Material and methods</h4>Patients treated with thermal ablation between December 2000 and November 2021 for small-size and intermedi ...[more]

PMID: 37686622

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim of this study was to assess safety, efficacy and survival outcomes of repeat thermal ablation as compared to repeat partial hepatectomy in patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) based study of two cohorts, repeat thermal ablation versus repeat partial hepatectomy, analyzed 136 patients (100 thermal ablation, 36 partial hepatectomy) and 224 tumors (170 thermal ablation, 54 partial hepatectomy) with recurrent CRLM from May 2002 to December 2020. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), distant progression-free survival (DPFS) and local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and complications, analyzed using the chi-square test. Multivariable analyses based on Cox proportional hazards model were used to account for potential confounders. In addition, subgroup analyses according to patient, initial and repeat local treatment characteristics were performed. In the crude overall comparison, OS of patients treated with repeat partial hepatectomy was not statistically different from repeat thermal ablation (p = 0.927). Further quantification of OS, after accounting for potential confounders, demonstrated concordant results for repeat local treatment (hazard ratio (HR), 0.986; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.517-1.881; p = 0.966). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS were 98.9%, 62.6% and 42.3% respectively for the thermal ablation group and 93.8%, 74.5% and 49.3% for the repeat resection group. No differences in DPFS (p = 0.942), LTPFS (p = 0.397) and complication rate (p = 0.063) were found. Mean length of hospital stay was 2.1 days in the repeat thermal ablation group and 4.8 days in the repeat partial hepatectomy group (p = 0.009). Subgroup analyses identified no heterogeneous treatment effects according to patient, initial and repeat local treatment characteristics. Repeat partial hepatectomy was not statistically different from repeat thermal ablation with regard to OS, DPFS, LTPFS and complications, whereas length of hospital stay favored repeat thermal ablation. Thermal ablation should be considered a valid and potentially less invasive alternative for small-size (0-3 cm) CRLM in the treatment of recurrent new CRLM. While, the eagerly awaited results of the phase III prospective randomized controlled COLLISION trial (NCT03088150) should provide definitive answers regarding surgery versus thermal ablation for CRLM.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of Thermal Ablation for Small-Size (0-3 cm) versus Intermediate-Size (3-5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE).

Purpose

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Efficacy of Thermal Ablation for Small-Size (0-3 cm) versus Intermediate-Size (3-5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets