4.6 Article

Role of hepatectomy in gastric cancer with multiple liver-limited metastases

Journal

GASTRIC CANCER
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 338-344

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10120-017-0730-9

Keywords

Gastric cancer; Liver metastases; Hepatectomy; Chemotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Several studies have demonstrated the benefit of hepatectomy for treating gastric cancer (GC) with liver-limited metastases (LLM). The survival benefit of hepatectomy compared with that of systemic chemotherapy is unknown, particularly in patients with multiple LLM. This study investigated the survival benefit of hepatectomy compared with that of systemic chemotherapy administered to patients with GC with multiple LLM. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the data of consecutive patients with GC with two or three LLM who underwent hepatectomy or received systemic chemotherapy as initial treatment at the Shizuoka Cancer Center between December 2004 and December 2015. Results Nine of 24 patients who met the inclusion criteria underwent hepatectomy, and 15 received chemotherapy. In the hepatectomy group, all patients achieved R0 resection and none died during hospitalization. Three patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Disease recurred in eight patients (88.9%). In the chemotherapy group, three patients underwent hepatectomy following initial chemotherapy and did not experience recurrence or death during follow-up. Median follow-up was 47.9 months and median overall survival (OS) was 38.1 and 24.8 months in the chemotherapy and hepatectomy groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis of OS, including initial treatment, revealed that unilobar liver metastasis was the only independent favorable prognostic factor. Conclusions Although hepatectomy for patients with GC with multiple LLM is not recommended as the initial therapy, it prolonged the survival of patients with tumors controlled using systemic chemotherapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available