前期可切除结直肠肝转移瘤的术前化疗:旧难题的新要素?

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Lorenzo Bernardi , Raffaello Roesel , Davit L. Aghayan , Pietro E. Majno-Hurst , Sara De Dosso , Alessandra Cristaudi
{"title":"前期可切除结直肠肝转移瘤的术前化疗:旧难题的新要素?","authors":"Lorenzo Bernardi ,&nbsp;Raffaello Roesel ,&nbsp;Davit L. Aghayan ,&nbsp;Pietro E. Majno-Hurst ,&nbsp;Sara De Dosso ,&nbsp;Alessandra Cristaudi","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The use of preoperative or “neoadjuvant” chemotherapy (NAC) has long been controversial for resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 guidelines on metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) indicate a combination of surgical/technical and oncologic/prognostic criteria as the two determinants for allocating patients to NAC or upfront hepatectomy. However, surgical and technical criteria have evolved, and oncologic prognostic criteria date from the pre-modern chemotherapy era and lack prospective validation.</p><p>The traditional literature is interpreted as not supporting the use of NAC because several studies fail to demonstrate a benefit in overall survival (OS) compared to upfront surgery; however, OS may not be the most appropriate endpoint to consider. Moreover, the commonly quoted studies against NAC contain many limitations that may explain why NAC failed to demonstrate its value. The query of the recent literature focused primarily on other aspects than OS, such as surgical technique, the impact of side effects of chemotherapy, the histological growth pattern of metastases, or the detection of circulating tumor DNA, shows data that support a more widespread use of NAC. These should prompt a critical reappraisal of the use of NAC, leading to a more precise selection of patients who could benefit from it.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737224000148/pdfft?md5=1c520914519cc1fac04b67e94eb45b47&pid=1-s2.0-S0305737224000148-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preoperative chemotherapy in upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases: New elements for an old dilemma?\",\"authors\":\"Lorenzo Bernardi ,&nbsp;Raffaello Roesel ,&nbsp;Davit L. Aghayan ,&nbsp;Pietro E. Majno-Hurst ,&nbsp;Sara De Dosso ,&nbsp;Alessandra Cristaudi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The use of preoperative or “neoadjuvant” chemotherapy (NAC) has long been controversial for resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 guidelines on metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) indicate a combination of surgical/technical and oncologic/prognostic criteria as the two determinants for allocating patients to NAC or upfront hepatectomy. However, surgical and technical criteria have evolved, and oncologic prognostic criteria date from the pre-modern chemotherapy era and lack prospective validation.</p><p>The traditional literature is interpreted as not supporting the use of NAC because several studies fail to demonstrate a benefit in overall survival (OS) compared to upfront surgery; however, OS may not be the most appropriate endpoint to consider. Moreover, the commonly quoted studies against NAC contain many limitations that may explain why NAC failed to demonstrate its value. The query of the recent literature focused primarily on other aspects than OS, such as surgical technique, the impact of side effects of chemotherapy, the histological growth pattern of metastases, or the detection of circulating tumor DNA, shows data that support a more widespread use of NAC. These should prompt a critical reappraisal of the use of NAC, leading to a more precise selection of patients who could benefit from it.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer treatment reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737224000148/pdfft?md5=1c520914519cc1fac04b67e94eb45b47&pid=1-s2.0-S0305737224000148-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer treatment reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737224000148\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer treatment reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737224000148","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于可切除的结直肠肝转移瘤(CRLM),术前化疗或 "新辅助 "化疗(NAC)的使用一直存在争议。欧洲肿瘤内科学会(ESMO)2023 年转移性结直肠癌(CRC)指南指出,手术/技术标准和肿瘤学/预后标准相结合是决定患者接受新辅助化疗还是先期肝切除术的两个因素。传统文献被解释为不支持使用 NAC,因为有几项研究未能证明与先期手术相比,NAC 在总生存期(OS)方面有优势;然而,OS 可能并不是最合适的考虑终点。此外,常被引用的反对 NAC 的研究存在许多局限性,这可能是 NAC 未能证明其价值的原因。对近期文献的查询主要集中在OS以外的其他方面,如手术技术、化疗副作用的影响、转移瘤的组织学生长模式或循环肿瘤DNA的检测,这些数据都支持更广泛地使用NAC。这些数据应促使人们对 NAC 的使用进行批判性的重新评估,从而更准确地选择可从 NAC 中获益的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Preoperative chemotherapy in upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases: New elements for an old dilemma?

The use of preoperative or “neoadjuvant” chemotherapy (NAC) has long been controversial for resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 guidelines on metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) indicate a combination of surgical/technical and oncologic/prognostic criteria as the two determinants for allocating patients to NAC or upfront hepatectomy. However, surgical and technical criteria have evolved, and oncologic prognostic criteria date from the pre-modern chemotherapy era and lack prospective validation.

The traditional literature is interpreted as not supporting the use of NAC because several studies fail to demonstrate a benefit in overall survival (OS) compared to upfront surgery; however, OS may not be the most appropriate endpoint to consider. Moreover, the commonly quoted studies against NAC contain many limitations that may explain why NAC failed to demonstrate its value. The query of the recent literature focused primarily on other aspects than OS, such as surgical technique, the impact of side effects of chemotherapy, the histological growth pattern of metastases, or the detection of circulating tumor DNA, shows data that support a more widespread use of NAC. These should prompt a critical reappraisal of the use of NAC, leading to a more precise selection of patients who could benefit from it.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer treatment reviews
Cancer treatment reviews 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
21.40
自引率
0.80%
发文量
109
审稿时长
13 days
期刊介绍: Cancer Treatment Reviews Journal Overview: International journal focused on developments in cancer treatment research Publishes state-of-the-art, authoritative reviews to keep clinicians and researchers informed Regular Sections in Each Issue: Comments on Controversy Tumor Reviews Anti-tumor Treatments New Drugs Complications of Treatment General and Supportive Care Laboratory/Clinic Interface Submission and Editorial System: Online submission and editorial system for Cancer Treatment Reviews
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信