Search

Routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) following hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is not universally practiced because of the lack of supporting evidence. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of AC following curative CRLM resection.Among the 742 patients who underwent their first hepatectomy for CRLM at our institution, 335 were stratified into surgery alone (SA; n=162) and AC (n=173) groups. Poor prognostic factors for SA were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Propensity score matching was used to compare the clinical outcomes between SA and AC groups according to the number of prognostic factors.Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels (≥10 ng/ml; p=0.01), primary lymph node metastases (≥1; p=0.0001), and the number (n≥4; p=0.01) and maximum diameter (≥5 cm; p=0.00001) of CRLM tumours were independent poor prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in the SA group. Patients with ≥3 risk factors were categorized as being high risk. After propensity score matching, the 5-year OS rate was significantly higher in the AC group (n=13) than that in the SA group (n=15; 47.9% vs. 7.3%; p=0.03) among high-risk patients.Adjuvant chemotherapy after curative CRLM resection may improve the prognosis of patients with three or more risk factors including preoperative CEA levels ≥10 g/ml, primary lymph node metastases ≥1, number (≥4) and maximum diameter (≥5 cm) of CRLM tumours.

This study aimed to retrospectively analyse adverse predictors to identify patients with huge hepatocellular carcinoma who were not appropriate candidates for hepatic resection.From 551 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent hepatectomy between 1992 and 2019, 92 were diagnosed with huge hepatocellular carcinoma (diameter10 cm) and 115 were diagnosed with large hepatocellular carcinoma (diameter=5-10 cm). Clinical features and overall and disease-free survival rates were compared between the two groups.Cumulative overall survival was significantly worse in the huge group than in the large group (p=0.035). In the huge group, multivariate analyses revealed that liver cirrhosis, multiple intrahepatic metastases (≥4), poor histological grade, and macroscopic portal vein invasion were significantly associated with poor prognosis.We identified four adverse predictors of survival and determined that patients with two or more predictors are not appropriate candidates for straightforward hepatic resection.

Background/aim Prophylactic splenectomy has shown no inferiority for tumors not invading the greater curvature side. Despite this, the clinical impact of prophylactic splenectomy for proximal advanced gastric cancer is not clear. This review aimed to clarify the impact of splenectomy for advanced gastric cancer in the upper third of the stomach. Materials and methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted based on PubMed and EMBASE databases. The following search terms were used: "gastric cancer" OR "splenectomy" OR upper third of the stomach" OR preservation of the spleen. Results Out of 765 articles, 18 studies (combined n=6,341) were included in the analysis. Four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and eight retrospective studies suggested the benefits of spleen-preserving gastrectomy. Six retrospective studies showed no significant benefit of spleen-preserving gastrectomy. Prophylactic splenectomy showed a close association with a higher incidence of postoperative morbidity (pancreatic fistula and anastomotic leakage) with no concomitant improvement in overall survival. Prophylactic splenectomy should not be routinely performed and RCTs are necessary to confirm the impact of splenectomy for cN(+) at the splenic hilum tumors and tumors invading the greater curvature.