4.6 Article

Hepatic resection for synchronous hepatic metastasis from gastric cancer

Journal

EJSO
Volume 39, Issue 7, Pages 694-700

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.03.006

Keywords

Gastric cancer; Liver metastases; Hepatectomy; Prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The role of surgical resection for synchronous hepatic metastases arising from gastric adenocarcinoma has not been established. This study was designed to explore the clinicopathologic features and surgical results of these patients. Methods: Twenty-five (4.8%) of 526 patients diagnosed with synchronous hepatic metastatic gastric cancer received hepatectomy and gastrectomy at the same time; 2 cases underwent repeat hepatectomy after intrahepatic recurrence. Clinicopathologic parameters of the hepatic metastases and the surgical results for all 25 patients were analysed. Results: The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates after resection were 96.0%, 70.4%, and 29.4%, respectively, and 56.0%, 22.3%, and 11.1%, respectively. Five patients survived for more than 5 years after surgery, and no mortality has occurred within 30 days after resection. Univariate analysis revealed that patients with multiple hepatic metastases suffered poorer OS (P = 0.026) and RFS (P = 0.035) than those with solitary hepatic metastasis. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy was a significant indicator of a favourable OS (P = 0.022). Number of metastatic lesions remained significant in the multivariate analysis of OS and RFS (P = 0.039, P = 0.049, respectively). None of variables of the primary lesion was a significant prognostic factor for those patients. Conclusions: Gastric cancer patients with a solitary synchronous liver metastasis may be good candidates for hepatic resection. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy may provide a benefit by aiding in OS. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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