Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases:Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.</p

Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases: Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group

Contains fulltext : 221694.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Irreversible electroporation to treat unresectable colorectal liver metastases (COLDFIRE-2): A phase II, two-center, single-arm clinical trial

Background: Irreversible electroporation (IRE), an ablative technique that uses high-voltage electrical pulses, has shown promise for eradicating tumors near critical structures, including blood vessels and bile ducts. Purpose: To investigate the efficacy and safety of IRE for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) unsuitable for resection or thermal ablation because of proximity to critical structures and for further systemically administered treatments. Materials and Methods: Between June 2014 and November 2018, participants with fluorine 18 (18F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PETavid CRLMs measuring 5.0 cm or smaller, unsuitable for partial hepatectomy and thermal ablation, underwent percutaneous or open IRE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02082782). Follow-up included tumor marker assessment and 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. For the primary end point to be met, at least 50% of treated participants had to be alive without local tumor progression (LTP) at 12 months, defined as LTP-free survival. Secondary aims were safety, technical success, local control allowing for repeat procedures, disease-free status, and overall survival. Results: A total of 51 participants (median age, 67 years [interquartile range, 62-75 years]; 37 men) underwent IRE. Of these 51 participants, 50 with a total of 76 CRLMs (median tumor size, 2.2 cm; range, 0.5-5.4 cm) were successfully treated in 62 procedures; in one participant, treatment was stopped prematurely because of pulse-induced cardiac arrhythmia. With a per-participant 1-year LTP-free survival of 68% (95% CI: 59, 84) according to competing risk analysis, the primary end point was met. Local control following repeat procedures was achieved in 74% of participants (37 of 50). Median overall survival from first IRE was 2.7 years (95% CI: 1.6, 3.8). Twenty-three participants experienced a total of 34 adverse events in 25 of the 62 procedures (overall complication rate, 40%). One participant (2%), who had an infected biloma after IRE, died fewer than 90 days after the procedure (grade 5 adverse event). Conclusion: Irreversible electroporation was effective and relatively safe for colorectal liver metastases 5.0 cm or smaller that were unsuitable for partial hepatectomy, thermal ablation, or further systemic treatment

Transcatheter CT Hepatic Arteriography Compared with Conventional CT Fluoroscopy Guidance in Percutaneous Thermal Ablation to Treat Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Single-Center Comparative Analysis of 2 Historical Cohorts

Purpose: To evaluate safety and efficacy of CT hepatic arteriography compared with conventional CT fluoroscopy guidance in percutaneous radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) ablation to treat colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Materials and Methods: This single-center comparative, retrospective study analyzed data of 108 patients treated with 156 percutaneous ablation procedures (42 CT fluoroscopy guidance [25 RF ablation, 17 MW ablation]; 114 CT hepatic arteriography guidance [18 RF ablation, 96 MW ablation]) for 260 CRLM between January 2009 and May 2019. Local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) was assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. LTPFS and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: There were no complications related to the transarterial catheter procedure. CT hepatic arteriography proved superior to CT fluoroscopy regarding 2-year LTPFS (18/202 [8.9%] vs 19/58 [32.8%]; P <.001, respectively). CT hepatic arteriography versus CT fluoroscopy (hazard ratio = 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.15–0.54; P <.001) and MW ablation versus RF ablation (hazard ratio = 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.24–1.12; P =.094) were positive predictors for longer LTPFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that CT hepatic arteriography versus CT fluoroscopy (hazard ratio = 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.19–0.90; P =.025) was associated with a significantly superior LTPFS. OS was similar between the 2 cohorts (P =.3). Conclusions: While adding procedure time and marginal patient burden, transcatheter CT hepatic arteriography–guided ablation was associated with increased local disease control and superior LTPFS compared with conventional CT fluoroscopy. CT hepatic arteriography represents a safe and valid alternative to CT fluoroscopy, as it reduces the number of repeat ablations required without adding risk or detrimental effect on survival

Improved Outcomes of Thermal Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A 10-Year Analysis from the Prospective Amsterdam CORE Registry (AmCORE)

Background: To analyze long-term oncological outcomes of open and percutaneous thermal ablation in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Methods: This assessment from a prospective, longitudinal tumor registry included 329 patients who underwent 541 procedures for 1350 CRLM from January 2010 to February 2021. Three cohorts were formed: 2010–2013 (129 procedures [53 percutaneous]), 2014–2017 (206 procedures [121 percutaneous]) and 2018–2021 (206 procedures [135 percutaneous]). Local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and overall survival (OS) data were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Potential confounding factors were analyzed with uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses. Results: LTPFS improved significantly over time for percutaneous ablations (2-year LTPFS 37.7% vs. 69.0% vs. 86.3%, respectively, P <.0001), while LTPFS for open ablations remained reasonably stable (2-year LTPFS 87.1% [2010–2013], vs. 92.7% [2014–2017] vs. 90.2% [2018–2021], P =.12). In the latter cohort (2018–2021), the open approach was no longer superior regarding LTPFS (P =.125). No differences between the three cohorts were found regarding OS (P =.088), length of hospital stay (open approach, P =.065; percutaneous approach, P =.054), and rate and severity of complications (P =.404). The rate and severity of complications favored the percutaneous approach in all three cohorts (P =.002). Conclusion: Over the last 10 years efficacy of percutaneous ablations has improved remarkably for the treatment of CRLM. Oncological outcomes seem to have reached results following open ablation. Given its minimal invasive character and shorter length of hospital stay, whenever feasible, percutaneous procedures may be favored over an open approach

Thermal ablation versus stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy to treat unresectable colorectal liver metastases: A comparative analysis from the prospective amsterdam core registry

Thermal ablation and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) are techniques to eradicate colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study compares the safety, efficacy and long-term oncological outcomes of these treatment methods. All prospectively registered patients (AmCORE registry) treated with thermal ablation or SABR alone for unresectable CRLM between 2007 and 2020 were analyzed using multivariate Cox-proportional hazard regression. In total 199 patients were included for analysis: 144 (400 CRLM) thermal ablation; 55 (69 CRLM) SABR. SABR patients were characterized by older age (p = 0.006), extrahepatic disease at diagnosis (p = 0.004) and larger tumors (p < 0.001). Thermal ablation patients were more likely to have synchronous disease, higher clinical risk scores (p = 0.030) and higher numbers of CRLMs treated (p < 0.001). Mortality was zero and morbidity low in both groups: no serious adverse events were recorded following SABR (n = 0/55) and nine (n = 9/144 [6.3%]; all CTCAE grade 3) after thermal ablation. SABR was associated with an inferior overall survival (OS) (median OS 53.0 months vs. 27.4 months; HR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.12–1.49; p = 0.003), local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) per-tumor (HR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.01–1.52; p = 0.044) and local control per-patient (HR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.20–2.04; p = 0.001) and per-tumor (HR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.44–2.49; p < 0.001). In this study thermal ablation was superior to SABR with regard to OS, LTPFS and local control, albeit at the cost of a limited risk of serious adverse events. Further studies are required to assess whether the worse outcomes following SABR were the effect of true differences in ablative treatment or a result of residual confounding