Search

The liver is the most common anatomical site for hematogenous metastases from colorectal cancer. Therefore effective treatment of liver metastases is one of the most challenging elements in the management of colorectal cancer. However, there is rare available clinical consensus or guideline only focusing on colorectal liver metastases. After six rounds of discussion by 195 clinical experts of the Shanghai International Consensus Expert Group on Colorectal Liver Metastases (SINCE) from 29 countries or regions, the Shanghai Consensus has been finally completed, based on current research and expert experience. The consensus emphasized the principle of multidisciplinary team, provided detailed diagnosis approaches, and guided precise local and systemic treatments. This Shanghai Consensus might be of great significance to standardized diagnosis and treatment of colorectal liver metastases all over the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The liver is the most common anatomical site for hematogenous metastases of colorectal cancer, and colorectal liver metastases is one of the most difficult and challenging points in the treatment of colorectal cancer. To improve the diagnosis and comprehensive treatment in China, the Guidelines have been edited and revised several times since 2008, including the overall evaluation, personalized treatment goals and comprehensive treatments, to prevent the occurrence of liver metastases, improve the resection rate of liver metastases and survival. The revised Guideline includes the diagnosis and follow-up, prevention, MDT effect, surgery and local ablative treatment, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, and comprehensive treatment, and with advanced experience, latest results, detailed content, and strong operability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal timing of resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases is still controversial. Retrospective cohort studies always had baseline imbalances in comparing simultaneous resection with staged strategy. Significantly more patients with mild conditions received simultaneous resections. Previous published meta-analyses based on these studies did not correct these biases, resulting in low reliability. Our meta-analysis was conducted to compensate for this deficiency and find candidates for each surgical strategy. Methods: A systemic search for major databases and relevant journals from January 2000 to April 2013 was performed. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality, morbidity, overall survival and disease-free survival. Other outcomes such as number of patients need blood transfusion and length of hospital stay were also assessed. Baseline analyses were conducted to find and correct potential confounding factors. Results: 22 studies with a total of 4494 patients were finally included. After correction of baseline imbalance, simultaneous and staged resections were similar in postoperative mortality (RR = 1.14, P = 0.52), morbidity (RR = 1.02, P = 0.85), overall survival (HR = 0.96, P = 0.50) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.97, P = 0.87). Only in pulmonary complications, simultaneous resection took a significant advantage (RR = 0.23, P = 0.003). The number of liver metastases was the major factor interfering with selecting surgical strategies. With >3 metastases, simultaneous and staged strategies were almost the same in morbidity (49.4% vs. 50.9%). With ≤3 metastases, staged resection caused lower morbidity (13.8% vs. 17.2%), not statistically significant. Conclusions: The number of liver metastases was the major confounding factor for postoperative morbidity, especially in staged resections. Without baseline imbalances, simultaneous took no statistical significant advantage in safety and efficacy. Considering the inherent limitations of this meta-analysis, the results should be interpret and applied prudently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this trial was to compare the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program with conventional perioperative management in patients who underwent radical resection for colorectal cancer. Methods: A combination of evidence-based and consensus methodology was used to develop the ERAS protocol. Five hundred ninety-seven consecutive patients who underwent elective colorectal resection were randomized to either the ERAS ( n = 299) or the control group ( n = 298). Outcomes relating to nutrition and metabolism index, stress index, and recovery index were measured and recorded. Results: Demographic and operative data were similar between the two groups. Patients in the ERAS group showed improved nutritional status when compared with those of the control group. On postoperative day (POD) 1, the HOMA-IR (insulin resistance index) of the ERAS group was lower than that of the control group ( p < 0.001). The cortisol level of the control group was elevated on both POD 1 ( p = 0.007) and POD 5 ( p = 0.002) compared to the preoperative level. However, the cortisol level of the ERAS group was not increased until POD 5 ( p = 0.001). Reduced levels of TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IFN-γ in the ERAS group indicated less postoperative stress responses. In addition, ERAS was associated with accelerated recovery of gastrointestinal function. The postoperative length of stay ( p < 0.001) and expense ( p < 0.001) for the ERAS group were reduced in comparison to the controls. Twenty-eight cases in the control group and twenty-nine in the ERAS group suffered complications, which was not significantly different. Conclusion: The ERAS protocol attenuates the surgical stress response and accelerates postoperative recovery without compromising patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]