肝切除对结直肠癌肝转移患者并发肝外疾病部位的预后影响:一项全国性多中心研究

IF 12.5 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Hirochika Kato, Ryo Seishima, Jun Okui, Kohei Shigeta, Yasunori Sato, Shin Kobayashi, Katsunori Sakamoto, Hirotoshi Kobayashi, Kazushige Kawai, Kimitaka Tani, Yoichi Ajioka, Itaru Endo, Keiichi Takahashi, Koji Okabayashi, Yuko Kitagawa
{"title":"肝切除对结直肠癌肝转移患者并发肝外疾病部位的预后影响:一项全国性多中心研究","authors":"Hirochika Kato, Ryo Seishima, Jun Okui, Kohei Shigeta, Yasunori Sato, Shin Kobayashi, Katsunori Sakamoto, Hirotoshi Kobayashi, Kazushige Kawai, Kimitaka Tani, Yoichi Ajioka, Itaru Endo, Keiichi Takahashi, Koji Okabayashi, Yuko Kitagawa","doi":"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) with concurrent extrahepatic disease (EHD) has demonstrated potential benefits for long-term prognosis; however, its effectiveness remains controversial. Additionally, the prognostic impact of different EHD sites is not well elucidated. This study aimed to assess the significance of liver resection in patients with CRLM with concurrent EHD and evaluate how different EHD sites influence prognosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A nationwide multicenter database was used for a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed during two periods: 2005-2007 and 2013-2015. EHD was classified into the following five subgroups: lung, peritoneum, lymph nodes, local, and others. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to minimize selection bias. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the overall survival (OS) between the different treatment groups and EHD subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 3,787 patients, 874 (23.1%) underwent liver resection. Following IPTW adjustment, the hepatectomy (HT) group demonstrated significantly better OS than the non-hepatectomy (non-HT) group (5-year hazard ratio, 0.322; 95% confidence interval, 0.273-0.379; p < 0.001). Analysis by the EHD site subgroup demonstrated that liver resection was associated with a better prognosis across all sites. However, the prognostic impact differed by EHD site, with peritoneal metastasis associated with poorer outcomes in both the HT (5-year OS rates, 30.1% vs. 45.0%) and non-HT (5-year OS rates, 4.4% vs. 8.6%) groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regardless of the EHD site, liver resection was associated with a significantly better OS in patients with CRLM with concurrent EHD. The prognostic impact varies across EHD sites, underscoring the significance of considering differential prognostic risks when selecting treatment strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":14401,"journal":{"name":"International journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differential prognostic impact of liver resection by the site of concurrent extrahepatic diseases in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases: a nationwide multicenter study.\",\"authors\":\"Hirochika Kato, Ryo Seishima, Jun Okui, Kohei Shigeta, Yasunori Sato, Shin Kobayashi, Katsunori Sakamoto, Hirotoshi Kobayashi, Kazushige Kawai, Kimitaka Tani, Yoichi Ajioka, Itaru Endo, Keiichi Takahashi, Koji Okabayashi, Yuko Kitagawa\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002727\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) with concurrent extrahepatic disease (EHD) has demonstrated potential benefits for long-term prognosis; however, its effectiveness remains controversial. Additionally, the prognostic impact of different EHD sites is not well elucidated. This study aimed to assess the significance of liver resection in patients with CRLM with concurrent EHD and evaluate how different EHD sites influence prognosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A nationwide multicenter database was used for a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed during two periods: 2005-2007 and 2013-2015. EHD was classified into the following five subgroups: lung, peritoneum, lymph nodes, local, and others. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to minimize selection bias. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the overall survival (OS) between the different treatment groups and EHD subgroups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 3,787 patients, 874 (23.1%) underwent liver resection. Following IPTW adjustment, the hepatectomy (HT) group demonstrated significantly better OS than the non-hepatectomy (non-HT) group (5-year hazard ratio, 0.322; 95% confidence interval, 0.273-0.379; p < 0.001). Analysis by the EHD site subgroup demonstrated that liver resection was associated with a better prognosis across all sites. However, the prognostic impact differed by EHD site, with peritoneal metastasis associated with poorer outcomes in both the HT (5-year OS rates, 30.1% vs. 45.0%) and non-HT (5-year OS rates, 4.4% vs. 8.6%) groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regardless of the EHD site, liver resection was associated with a significantly better OS in patients with CRLM with concurrent EHD. The prognostic impact varies across EHD sites, underscoring the significance of considering differential prognostic risks when selecting treatment strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002727\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002727","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:肝切除术治疗伴有肝外疾病(EHD)的结直肠肝转移(CRLM)已被证明对长期预后有潜在的益处;然而,其有效性仍然存在争议。此外,不同的EHD位点对预后的影响还没有很好地阐明。本研究旨在评估肝切除术对CRLM合并EHD患者的意义,并评估不同部位EHD对预后的影响。方法:采用全国多中心数据库对2005-2007年和2013-2015年诊断的患者进行回顾性分析。EHD分为以下五个亚组:肺、腹膜、淋巴结、局部和其他。采用处理加权逆概率法(IPTW)最小化选择偏差。采用Kaplan-Meier生存曲线和Cox比例风险模型比较不同治疗组和EHD亚组的总生存期(OS)。结果:3787例患者中,874例(23.1%)行肝切除术。经IPTW调整后,肝切除术(HT)组的OS明显优于非肝切除术(non-HT)组(5年风险比0.322;95%置信区间为0.273-0.379;P < 0.001)。对EHD部位亚组的分析表明,肝切除与所有部位的更好预后相关。然而,EHD部位对预后的影响不同,在HT组(5年OS率,30.1%对45.0%)和非HT组(5年OS率,4.4%对8.6%)中,腹膜转移与较差的预后相关。结论:无论EHD发生在哪个部位,肝切除与伴有EHD的CRLM患者的OS显著改善相关。不同部位的EHD对预后的影响各不相同,这强调了在选择治疗策略时考虑不同预后风险的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differential prognostic impact of liver resection by the site of concurrent extrahepatic diseases in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases: a nationwide multicenter study.

Background: Liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) with concurrent extrahepatic disease (EHD) has demonstrated potential benefits for long-term prognosis; however, its effectiveness remains controversial. Additionally, the prognostic impact of different EHD sites is not well elucidated. This study aimed to assess the significance of liver resection in patients with CRLM with concurrent EHD and evaluate how different EHD sites influence prognosis.

Methods: A nationwide multicenter database was used for a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed during two periods: 2005-2007 and 2013-2015. EHD was classified into the following five subgroups: lung, peritoneum, lymph nodes, local, and others. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to minimize selection bias. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the overall survival (OS) between the different treatment groups and EHD subgroups.

Results: Among 3,787 patients, 874 (23.1%) underwent liver resection. Following IPTW adjustment, the hepatectomy (HT) group demonstrated significantly better OS than the non-hepatectomy (non-HT) group (5-year hazard ratio, 0.322; 95% confidence interval, 0.273-0.379; p < 0.001). Analysis by the EHD site subgroup demonstrated that liver resection was associated with a better prognosis across all sites. However, the prognostic impact differed by EHD site, with peritoneal metastasis associated with poorer outcomes in both the HT (5-year OS rates, 30.1% vs. 45.0%) and non-HT (5-year OS rates, 4.4% vs. 8.6%) groups.

Conclusions: Regardless of the EHD site, liver resection was associated with a significantly better OS in patients with CRLM with concurrent EHD. The prognostic impact varies across EHD sites, underscoring the significance of considering differential prognostic risks when selecting treatment strategies.

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
CiteScore
17.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Surgery (IJS) has a broad scope, encompassing all surgical specialties. Its primary objective is to facilitate the exchange of crucial ideas and lines of thought between and across these specialties.By doing so, the journal aims to counter the growing trend of increasing sub-specialization, which can result in "tunnel-vision" and the isolation of significant surgical advancements within specific specialties.
×
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