Update and review of the multidisciplinary management of stage IV colorectal cancer with liver metastases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The management of stage IV colorectal cancer with liver metastases has historically involved a multidisciplinary approach. In the last several decades, there have been great strides made in the therapeutic options available to treat these patients with advancements in medical, surgical, locoregional and adjunctive therapies available to patients with colorectal liver metastases(CLM). As a result, there have been improvements in patient care and survival. Naturally, the management of CLM has become increasingly complex in coordinating the various aspects of care in order to optimize patient outcomes.</p> <p>Review</p> <p>A review of historical and up to date literature was undertaken utilizing Medline/PubMed to examine relevant topics of interest in patients with CLM including criterion for resectability, technical/surgical considerations, chemotherapy, adjunctive and locoregional therapies. This review explores the various disciplines and modalities to provide current perspectives on the various options of care for patients with CLM.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Improvements in modern day chemotherapy as allowed clinicians to pursue a more aggressive surgical approach in the management of stage IV colorectal cancer with CLM. Additionally, locoregional and adjunctive therapies has expanded the armamentarium of treatment options available. As a result, the management of patients with CLM requires a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach utilizing various modalities and a more aggressive approach may now be pursued in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer with CLM to achieve optimal outcomes.</p

How Low Can We Go?: Comparing Long-term Oncologic Outcomes for APR and LAR in Very Low Rectal Cancer

Management of very low rectal cancer is one of the most challenging issues faced by colorectal surgeons. For tumors in the mid and upper rectum, procedures can be done to resect the cancer while maintaining continence, a major determinant of post-operative quality of life. In the low rectum, however, to optimize oncologic outcomes, many surgeons feel compelled to pursue abdominoperineal (APR) over low anterior resection (LAR), a sphincter-preserving procedure. It was hypothesized that after robust adjustment, procedure choice will not be associated with a difference in disease-free survival in the resection of tumors in the low rectum. To analyze this, the US Rectal Cancer Collaborative Database, a comprehensive, multi-center dataset obtained from six institutions between 2010 and 2016, was queried. Patients undergoing TME resection for Stage I-III very low rectal cancers (involvement) were selected for this study. Patients were categorized by procedure- LAR vs APR. Primary outcome was five-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, recurrence, length of stay, and complications. An adjusted analysis was performed to account for all known potential confounders. 431 patients with very low rectal cancer treated by either APR or LAR were identified. 154 (35.7%) underwent APR. The overall recurrence rate was 19.6%. Median follow-up time was 42.5 months. An analysis adjusted for age, gender, BMI, ASA class, and pathologic stage observed no difference in disease free survival between operative types (HR=0.90, 95% CI [0.53-1.52], p=0.70). Similarly, secondary outcomes demonstrated no significant difference between operation types, including length of stay (Beta: 0.04, Std. error = 0.25, p = 0.54), overall survival (HR=1.29, 95% CI [0.71-2.32], p=0.39), or complications (OR = 1.53, 95% CI [0.94 - 2.50], p=0.09). In this analysis, no significant difference in disease-free survival or overall survival was observed between patients undergoing APR or LAR for very low rectal cancer. This comprehensive study supports the treatment of very low rectal cancer, less than 5cm from the anorectal ring with no sphincter involvement, by either abdominal perineal or low anterior resection. Further studies may focus on patient-reported and quality of life outcomes which may influence decision-making