Liver resection for metastases not of colorectal, neuroendocrine, sarcomatous, or ovarian (NCNSO) origin: A multicentric study.

Liver resection is a well-established treatment for colorectal, neuroendocrine and sarcomatous metastases but remains ill-defined for metastases from other primary sites. This study aimed to analyze the outcomes of hepatic resection for metastases not of colorectal, neuroendocrine, sarcomatous, or ovarian (NCNSO) origin and to identify predictors of outcome. Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing resection for NCNSO metastases in three western centers. Patients were analyzed according to the primary cancer. Outcomes were recurrence and survival. We analyzed 188 patients, divided in: gastrointestinal (59), breast (59) and "others" (70). Median time to recurrence was 15.3 months, while median survival was 52 months. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 78%, 60.4% and 47.8%, respectively. In term of prognostic factors, metastases >35 mm from gastrointestinal tumors were associated with lower survival (p = 0.029) and age>60 years was associated with better survival in breast metastases (p = 0.018). Liver resection for NCNSO metastases is feasible and results in long-term survival are similar to colorectal metastases. In gastrointestinal metastases, size (<35 mm) could be used to select patients

The role of hepatic resection in the treatment of hepatocellular cancer

Current guidelines recommend surgical resection as the primary treatment for a single hepatocellular cancer (HCC) with Child\u27s A cirrhosis, normal serum bilirubin, and no clinically significant portal hypertension. We determined how frequently guidelines were followed and whether straying from them impacted survival. BRIDGE is a multiregional cohort study including HCC patients diagnosed between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2011. A total of 8,656 patients from 20 sites were classified into four groups: (A) 718 ideal resection candidates who were resected; (B) 144 ideal resection candidates who were not resected; (C) 1,624 nonideal resection candidates who were resected; and (D) 6,170 nonideal resection candidates who were not resected. Median follow-up was 27 months. Log-rank and Cox\u27s regression analyses were conducted to determine differences between groups and variables associated with survival. Multivariate analysis of all ideal candidates for resection (A+B) revealed a higher risk of mortality with treatments other than resection. For all resected patients (A+C), portal hypertension and bilirubin \u3e1 mg/dL were not associated with mortality. For all patients who were not ideal candidates for resection (C+D), resection was associated with better survival, compared to embolization and other treatments, but was inferior to ablation and transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergoing resection would not be considered ideal candidates based on current guidelines. Not resecting ideal candidates was associated with higher mortality. The study suggests that selection criteria for resection may be modestly expanded without compromising outcomes, and that some nonideal candidates may still potentially benefit from resection over other treatment modalities