Léonor Benhaim

Adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of colorectal liver metastases in patients at high risk of hepatic recurrence: a comparative study between hepatic arterial infusion of oxaliplatin and modern systemic chemotherapy.

Introduction:After curatively intended surgery for colorectal liver metastases, liver recurrences occur in more than 60% of patients, despite the administration of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the benefit of combined adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) and intravenous (IV) 5-FU compared with standard modern adjuvant IV chemotherapy in patients at high risk of hepatic recurrence. Patients and Methods:From January 2000 to December 2009, 98 patients, who had undergone curative resection of at least 4 colorectal liver metastases, were selected from a prospective database. Among them, 44 (45%) had received postoperative HAI combined with systemic 5-FU (HAI group) and 54 (55%) had received “modern” systemic chemotherapy (IV group). Results:The 2 groups were similar in terms of age, sex, the stage of the primary, and the administration of preoperative chemotherapy. The median number of HAI cycles received per patient was 7 [range, 1–12]. Twenty-nine patients (66%) had received at least 6 cycles of HAI oxaliplatin, and 22 patients (50%) had received the full planned treatment. For the remaining 22 patients (50%), HAI chemotherapy had been discontinued because of toxicity (n = 8), HAI catheter dysfunction (n = 6), an early recurrence (n = 6), and patients refusal (n = 2). After a median follow-up of 60 months (51–81 months), 3-year overall survival was slightly higher in the HAI group (75% vs 62%, P = 0.17). Three-year disease-free survival was significantly longer in patients in the HAI group than those in the IV group (33% vs 5%, P < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis, adjuvant HAI chemotherapy and an R0 resection margin status were the only independent predictive factors for prolonged disease-free survival. Conclusions:Postoperative HAI oxaliplatin combined with systemic chemotherapy after curatively intended surgery of colorectal liver metastases is feasible and may significantly improve disease-free survival of patients at high risk of hepatic recurrence compared with adjuvant modern systemic chemotherapy alone. These results should be confirmed in a randomized study.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: What Is the Impact on Postoperative Outcome and Oncologic Results?

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to compare the postoperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs). BACKGROUND The feasibility of the laparoscopic approach for gGIST resection has been demonstrated; however, its impact on outcomes, particularly its oncologic safety for tumors greater than 5 cm, remains unknown. METHODS Among 1413 patients treated for a GIST in 61 European centers between 2001 and 2013, patients who underwent primary resection for a gGIST smaller than 20 cm (N = 666), by either laparoscopy (group L, n = 282) or open surgery (group O, n = 384), were compared. Multivariable analyses and propensity score matching were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS In-hospital mortality and morbidity rates in groups L and O were 0.4% versus 2.1% (P = 0.086) and 11.3% vs 19.5% (P = 0.004), respectively. Laparoscopic resection was independently protective against in-hospital morbidity (odds ratio 0.54, P = 0.014). The rate of R0 resection was 95.7% in group L and 92.7% in group O (P = 0.103). After 1:1 propensity score matching (n = 224), the groups were comparable according to age, sex, tumor location and size, mitotic index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, and the extent of surgical resection. After adjustment for BMI, overall morbidity (10.3% vs 19.6%; P = 0.005), surgical morbidity (4.9% vs 9.8%; P = 0.048), and medical morbidity (6.2% vs 13.4%; P = 0.01) were significantly lower in group L. Five-year recurrence-free survival was significantly better in group L (91.7% vs 85.2%; P = 0.011). In tumors greater than 5 cm, in-hospital morbidity and 5-year recurrence-free survival were similar between the groups (P = 0.255 and P = 0.423, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic resection for gGISTs is associated with favorable short-term outcomes without compromising oncologic results.

Portal Vein Occlusion Prior to Extensive Resection in Colorectal Liver Metastasis: A Necessity Rather than an Option!

Preoperative portal vein occlusion (PVO) of one liver lobe is regularly used for inducing liver hypertrophy of the contralateral lobe to prevent postoperative liver failure in patients with an anticipated insufficient future liver remnant (FLR) following resection. A similar rate of hypertrophy of the liver parenchyma with preserved portal flow can be obtained either by percutaneous portal embolization using several agents or by portal vein ligation. This strategy of preoperatively manipulating the liver volume has been acclaimed as a major step in liver surgery, paving the way for extensive resection for initially unresectable tumors. It has been clearly shown that chemotherapy of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) can provide significant downstaging of liver disease enabling curative rescue resection and translating into an improved long-term survival. Over the last decade, both PVO and chemotherapy have dramatically widened the scope of surgical resection of CRLM. Several institutions involved in the surgical treatment of CRLM have claimed that preoperative PVO has increased the number of candidates for complete tumor resection. The hypertrophy of the FLR allows the safety of major resection. In the present issue, the article by Pamecha et al. tends to dampen the early enthusiasm regarding PVO for CLRM. This well-written article, which compares the surgical outcomes of two groups of patients operated for CRLM with or without portal vein embolization (PVE), highlights the unfavorable effects of PVE. Firstly, one-third of the patients were nonoperable after PVE because of rapid progression of disease, and secondly the long-term survival for patients resected after PVE was less favorable than for the group who underwent immediate surgery. A legitimate concern is whether the stimulus for liver regeneration induced by PVO might enhance tumor growth. As reported in a recent review of this journal, experimental studies have shown that hepatectomy or portal ligation in rats induced tumor growth and in some clinical studies, after PVO, the growth rate of liver metastasis seems to be more rapid than that of the liver parenchyma including a higher proliferative activity of intrahepatic metastasis possibly induced by hyper arterializations. Although these studies clearly demonstrate that tumor progression after PVO is possible, we believe that it is not yet time to consider a restriction of preoperative modulation of the liver parenchyma by PVO. Percutaneous embolization is a safe procedure that could reduce intrahepatic recurrence rate after right hepatectomy for unilobar CRLM. Several series have shown that in patients with extensive CRLM who would otherwise be unresectable, PVO followed by surgery offers a significant benefit with a 5-year survival up to 40%. In these studies the evidence of direct stimulation of tumor growth by PVE is circumstantial, and the rate of unresectability after PVE due to intrahepatic and/or extrahepatic tumor progression is regularly around 25%, which is not very different from the results of Pamecha et al. The main problem raised by this article is the indication of PVO and its association with chemotherapy before a major liver resection. The indication of PVO should depend on several factors including the extent and expected difficulties of resection, the status of nontumorous liver parenchyma, and the exact quantification of sufficient minimal functional hepatic volume. We have clearly demonstrated that a right hepatectomy, which is the main procedure performed after PVO, can be safely performed in patients with normal parenchyma. Therefore, except in patients with a FLR less than 25% of the total volume and Society of Surgical Oncology 2009

Peritoneal carcinomatosis from unusual cancer origins: Is there a role for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy?

INTRODUCTION Complete cytoreductive surgery (CCRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is the gold standard for curative treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) arising from colorectal cancer, peritoneal mesothelioma and peritoneal pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). The results of HIPEC remain controversial in PC that originates from ovarian cancer, stomach cancer, neuroendocrine tumors, or sarcoma. HIPEC has also been used, although very rarely, for other malignant carcinomatoses. Its use has been exceptional due either to the rarity of the tumor or because such disease is usually widespread and rarely confined to the peritoneum. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of CCRS plus HIPEC in patients with PC of unusual origin. METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent CCRS plus HIPEC for PC whose origin was neither gastric, ovarian or colorectal carcinoma, nor neuroendocrine tumor, mesothelioma, PMP or sarcoma. RESULTS Between 1995 and 2013, 31 patients with 15 PC arising from unusual primary tumors underwent CCRS plus HIPEC. After a median follow-up of 90 months, 10 patients were alive and without recurrence. The overall survival rate at 5 years was 33% with a median survival of 37 months. In univariate analysis, factors of poor prognosis and predictors of recurrence were the performance of immediate postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy instead of HIPEC and a peritoneal index ≥ 12. No prognostic impact due to tumor origin could be demonstrated. CONCLUSION The decision to perform CCRS plus HIPEC for PC arising from unusual cancer origins remains difficult. These patients should be prospectively entered into registries of rare tumors that involve the peritoneum in order to better define indications.

Laparoscopic single port pseudo-continent perineal colostomy.

Please cite this article in press as: Dumont F, et al. Laparoscopic single port pseudo-continent perineal colostomy. Journal of Visceral Surgery (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2015.10.008 a Département de chirurgie oncologique, institut Gustave-Roussy, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif cedex, France b Département de chirurgie oncologique, institut cancérologique de l’Ouest, rue du Professeur-Jacques-Monod, 44805 Saint-Herblain, France

Ninety percent of the adverse outcomes occur in 10% of patients: can we identify the populations at high risk of developing peritoneal metastases after curative surgery for colorectal cancer?

Abstract Background: Peritoneal metastases (PM) occur in 3.4–6.3% after curative surgery for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Systematic “2nd look” surgery helps overcoming the diagnostic problem but can be only proposed to selected patients. The aim of this study was to update the knowledge on risk factors of developing PM after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Methods: A systematic review of the literature published between 2011 and 2016 was made, searching for all clinical studies reporting the incidence of recurrent PM after curative surgery for colorectal cancer and factors associated with the primary tumour that were likely to influence this recurrence rate. Results: Seven new clinical studies were considered informative for risk factors and added to the 16 reviewed in 2013. Even if the level of evidence was low, data suggested rates of recurrent PM at 1 year between 54% and 71% after completely resected synchronous PM, between 62% and 71% after resection of isolated synchronous ovarian metastases, of 27% after surgery for a perforated primary tumour, of 16% after surgery for a pT4 tumour, and between 11% and 36% after surgery for a mucinous histological subtype. No new risk factor was identified. Conclusions: Evidence regarding the incidence of recurrent PM after curative surgery for colorectal cancer is poor. Situations at higher risk of recurrent PM are synchronous PM, synchronous isolated ovarian metastases, perforated primary tumour with serosa invasion and mucinous histological subtype.