Benefits of Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Strategy on Survival of Patients with Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis
Yang Lv,Qing-Yang Feng,Ye Wei,Li Ren,QingHai Ye,XiaoYing Wang,YueHong Cui,TianShu Liu,Bo Zhou,MingLiang Wang,ShengXiang Rao,Jian Wang,JianYong Ding,Guo-dong He,Jian-Min Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ctm2.121
IF: 8.554
2020-01-01
Clinical and Translational Medicine
Abstract:Clinical and Translational MedicineVolume 10, Issue 3 e121 LETTER TO EDITOROpen Access Benefits of multi-disciplinary treatment strategy on survival of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastasis Yang Lv, Yang Lv orcid.org/0000-0002-6013-0558 Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Y.L., Q.Y.F., Y.W., and L.R. contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this authorQing-Yang Feng, Qing-Yang Feng Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Y.L., Q.Y.F., Y.W., and L.R. contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this authorYe Wei, Ye Wei Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Y.L., Q.Y.F., Y.W., and L.R. contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this authorLi Ren, Li Ren Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Y.L., Q.Y.F., Y.W., and L.R. contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this authorQingHai Ye, QingHai Ye Department of Liver Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXiaoYing Wang, XiaoYing Wang Department of Liver Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYueHong Cui, YueHong Cui Department of Oncology, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorTianShu Liu, TianShu Liu orcid.org/0000-0002-8604-6311 Department of Oncology, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorBo Zhou, Bo Zhou Department of Intervention treatment, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorMingLiang Wang, MingLiang Wang Department of Radiology, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorShengXiang Rao, ShengXiang Rao Department of Radiology, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJian Wang, Jian Wang Department of Radiotherapy, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJianYong Ding, JianYong Ding Department of Thoracic Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorGuo-dong He, Corresponding Author Guo-dong He angelhgd@163.com Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Correspondence Jian-Min Xu, Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, and Guo-Dong He, Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Email: xujmin@aliyun.com; angelhgd@163.comSearch for more papers by this authorJian-Min Xu, Corresponding Author Jian-Min Xu xujmin@aliyun.com Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Correspondence Jian-Min Xu, Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, and Guo-Dong He, Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Email: xujmin@aliyun.com; angelhgd@163.comSearch for more papers by this author Yang Lv, Yang Lv orcid.org/0000-0002-6013-0558 Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Y.L., Q.Y.F., Y.W., and L.R. contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this authorQing-Yang Feng, Qing-Yang Feng Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Y.L., Q.Y.F., Y.W., and L.R. contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this authorYe Wei, Ye Wei Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Y.L., Q.Y.F., Y.W., and L.R. contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this authorLi Ren, Li Ren Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Y.L., Q.Y.F., Y.W., and L.R. contributed equally to this work.Search for more papers by this authorQingHai Ye, QingHai Ye Department of Liver Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXiaoYing Wang, XiaoYing Wang Department of Liver Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYueHong Cui, YueHong Cui Department of Oncology, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorTianShu Liu, TianShu Liu orcid.org/0000-0002-8604-6311 Department of Oncology, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorBo Zhou, Bo Zhou Department of Intervention treatment, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorMingLiang Wang, MingLiang Wang Department of Radiology, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorShengXiang Rao, ShengXiang Rao Department of Radiology, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJian Wang, Jian Wang Department of Radiotherapy, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJianYong Ding, JianYong Ding Department of Thoracic Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorGuo-dong He, Corresponding Author Guo-dong He angelhgd@163.com Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Correspondence Jian-Min Xu, Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, and Guo-Dong He, Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Email: xujmin@aliyun.com; angelhgd@163.comSearch for more papers by this authorJian-Min Xu, Corresponding Author Jian-Min Xu xujmin@aliyun.com Department of General Surgery, ZhongShan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, Shanghai, China Correspondence Jian-Min Xu, Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, and Guo-Dong He, Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Email: xujmin@aliyun.com; angelhgd@163.comSearch for more papers by this author First published: 05 July 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/ctm2.121 AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Dear editor: More than 25% of colorectal cancer (CRC) have liver metastasis (CRLM),1 for which the multi-disciplinary treatment (MDT) has emerged as an alternative of therapeutic strategies in China.2 In the present study, we reported a long-term MDT treatment experiences and assessed the advantages of the MDT strategy, and furthermore, we also aimed to define the criteria of the suitable CRLM patients who can be benefited more from MDT strategy. This study retrospectively enrolled two independent cohorts of consecutive CRLM patients (MDT cohort and No-MDT cohort). Management of MDT and statistical methods are described in Supporting Information Section 1. From February 9, 2009 to December 28, 2017, a total of 3740 consecutive MDT discussions were studied, and MDT times are shown in Figure S1. The management workflow of two independent cohort is shown in Figure 1A. A total of 1027 CRLM patients received MDT and 401 CRLM patients were treated without MDT. Of 1027 MDT patients, 51% were males and 54% were older than 60 years. The majority of MDT cohort patients with CRLM had more liver metastatic lesions (P < .01) and shorter tumor size (P < .01). More advanced CRLM received MDT (Table S1). FIGURE 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint A, Flow diagram of two independent CRLM patients enrolled from Zhongshan Hospital (MDT cohort and No-MDT cohort); B, Kaplan-Meier OS curves for CRLM patients of MDT and No-MDT cohorts; C, Kaplan-Meier OS curves for low CRS patients of MDT and No-MDT cohorts; D, Kaplan-Meier OS curves for high CRS patients MDT and No-MDT cohorts; E, Kaplan-Meier OS curves for low CRS patients with extra-hepatic metastasis of MDT and No-MDT cohorts; F, Kaplan-Meier OS curves for low CRS patients without extra-hepatic metastasis of MDT and No-MDT cohorts, P-values were determined by the log-rank test. Abbreviations: CRLM, colorectal cancer liver metastasis; OS, overall survival; MDT, multi-disciplinary treatment; CRLM, colorectal cancer liver metastasis; CRS, clinical risk score Figure S2 demonstrates the compliance rate of surgical and no-surgical plan in MDT and No-MDT cohorts. Univariate and multivariate logistics analysis for compliance to treatment suggestion are performed in Table S2, and MDT was regarded as an independent factor for adherence (P < .01). Reasons for changes to treatment plan are shown in Table S3. In addition, thoracic CT scan, CA125/CA724 and pelvic MRI scan, liver MRI scan, RAS/RAF mutation status, and PET/CT of CRLM patients in MDT cohort showed significant difference from No-MDT controls (Table S4; P < .01). Of 1027 patients in MDT cohort, 264 patients had extra-hepatic metastasis (25.7%), including 212 lung (21%), 43 bone (4%), and 54 transcelomic metastases (5%). Resectability change in 202 patients (20%) and additional targeted therapies were added in selective 307 patients (30%) (Table S5). The larger proportion of MDT cohort patients received chemotherapy plus targeted therapy at the first line or second line treatments (P < .01). FOLFOXIRI regimen and VIC regimen were performed in MDT cohort patients more than in those without MDT (P < .01) (Table S6). Initially unresectable CRC patients received conversion resection demonstrated better median survival duration in both MDT (42.0 vs 37.0 months) and No-MDT cohorts (36.6 vs 28.4 months) and had liver metastasectomy rate in MDT significantly higher than No-MDT (P < .01), as shown in Table S7. The overall survival (OS) rate in recruited patients is shown in Table S8, independent upon clinical T stage (P < .05), N stage (P < .05), metastatic tumor number (P < .05), and tumor size (P < .05), and resection of primary site (P < .05). There was no significant difference of OS rates between patients with and without MDT (Median OS: 47.0 months vs 41.0 months, P = .06) (Figure 1B). To further identify effective discriminator on survival benefits, risk stratified analysis was performed in Table 1. We found that the OS rate of No-MDT patients with high clinical risk score (CRS) was significantly worse than those with MDT(Figure 1C, P < .01), rather than No-MDT patients with low CRS (P > .08) as shown in Figure 1D. TABLE 1. stratified analysis for overall survival between different CRLM cohorts MDT cohort (N = 1027) No-MDT cohort (N = 401) Characteristics Median IQR Median IQR HR (95%CI) P-value Age ≥60 45.0 28.0-54.0 44.0 26.0-53.0 0.945 (0.768-1.221) .87 <60 42.0 25.0-57.0 43.0 23.0-57.0 1.021 (0.452-1.203) .68 Gender Male 39.0 22.0-61.0 40.0 23.0-52.0 1.198 (0.956-1.324) .96 Female 43.0 24.0-58.0 42.0 25.0-61.0 1.043 (0.867-1.192) .88 Primary site Left colon 41.0 26.0-57.0 42.0 21.0-57.0 1.324 (0.803-1.672) .54 Right colon 40.0 20.0-51.0 38.0 21.0-50.0 1.254 (0.876-1.422) .32 Rectum 44.0 25.0-58.0 43.0 22.0-57.0 0.975 (0.824-1.306) .21 cT stage T1/T2 49.0 39.0-62.0 48.0 37.0-60.0 0.754 (0.670-2.432) .60 T3/T4 36.0 25.0-58.0 38.0 22.0-57.0 1.035 (0.934-1.216) .24 CRS score low 53.0 45.0-61.0 54.0 19.0-42.0 1.019 (0.776-1.334) .78 high 45.0 43.0-64.0 31.0 23.0-51.0 1.294 (1.157-1.615) <.001 Extra-hepatic metastasis Yes 40.0 21.0-56.0 41.0 19.0-56.0 1.295 (0.876-2.323) .32 No 44.0 25.0-58.0 45.0 22.0-57.0 0.785 (0.643-1.224) .14 CRLM patients were furthermore divided into low and high CRS subgroups according to CRS system.3 Clinical T stage, metastatic tumor size, and extra-hepatic metastasis were regarded as independent risk factors for OS in low CRS patients, while clinical T stage, number of metastasis, metastatic tumor size, and MDT were regarded as independent risk factors for OS in high CRS patients, as shown in Table S9. Among low CRS patients, significant survival benefit of MDT for OS was observed in patients with extra-hepatic metastasis (Figure 1E, P < .05), while not in patients without extra-hepatic metastasis (Figure 1F, P > .05). This is the first study to complementarily evaluate long-term experiences of MDT on CRLM cases. The number of Zhongshan CRLM MDT increased gradually from 235 to 564 per year. MDT as an independent method could improve adherence, although there are many risk factors for non-adherence, such as patient factors (eg, age, sex, and emotional functions), family environment, and therapeutic settings.4 Although MDT patients received more necessary diagnostic tests and more standardized systematic treatment regimen, no significant difference on prognosis was noticed between patients with or without MDT. However, the stratified analysis on factors for OS among demonstrated that MDT was more effective and improved survival outcome from 31 to 45 months in high CRS subgroup (P < .01) and in patients with low CRS and extra-hepatic metastasis (P < .05). These findings were not consistent with previous studies,5, 6 which could be explained as follows: (1) Lordan's report5 evaluated CRLM cases after hepatic resection, which was limited to represent all CRLM; (2) Jen-Kou Lin6 reported cases from 2001 to 2010 and there were significant differences for diagnosis and treatment for CRLM such as targeted therapy, which was widely used on CRLM patients after 2009. Besides, our results was also reasonable for, (1) in the new era of MDT that is composed of many doctors, after reviews and experiences of many cases, one specialist doctor could be able to provide appropriate suggestions for selective CRLM cases; (2) after analysis, low CRS CRC liver-limited metastasis patients had better prognosis and were not hard to be properly dealt with. Considering the high incidence of CRLM and time-consuming nature of MDT, we suggested that MDT should not be recommended to selective low CRS liver-limited patients due to the low efficacy on decision making and long-term prognosis, when patients could be managed according to a standard guidelines.7-9 In summary, we found that MDT could be helpful to improve the accuracy of diagnosis, efficacy of adherence and standardized treatment, and rate of conversion resection. Benefits of MDT on overall survival were more obvious in high CRS patients and low CRS patients with extra-hepatic metastasis. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank all the doctors and nurses during the treatment process. This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81602040 and 81402341), Clinical Science and Technology Innovation Project of Shanghai (SHDC12016104), and Shanghai Science and Technology Committee Project (17411951300). The funding bodies had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in the writing of the manuscript. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare no conflicts of interest for the publication of this manuscript. ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE Written informed consent was obtained by all the patients. The study protocol followed the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethical Committee of Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University. AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIAL The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request. Supporting Information Filename Description ctm2121-sup-0001-SuppMat.docx9.4 MB Supporting Information. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. REFERENCES 1Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66(2): 115- 132. 2Morris E, Haward RA, Gilthorpe MS, Craigs C, Forman D. The impact of the Calman-Hine report on the processes and outcomes of care for Yorkshire's colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2006; 95(8): 979- 985. 3Fong Y, Fortner J, Sun RL, Brennan MF, Blumgart LH. Clinical score for predicting recurrence after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of 1001 consecutive cases. Ann Surg. 1999; 230(3): 309- 318. discussion 318–321. 4Mitchell AE, Scarcella DL, Rigutto GL, et al. Cancer in adolescents and young adults: treatment and outcome in Victoria. Med J Aust. 2004; 180(2): 59- 62. 5Lordan JT, Karanjia ND, Quiney N, Fawcett WJ, Worthington TR. A 10-year study of outcome following hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases - The effect of evaluation in a multidisciplinary team setting. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009; 35(3): 302- 306. 6Lan YT, Jiang JK, Chang SC, et al. Improved outcomes of colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases in the era of the multidisciplinary teams. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016; 31(2): 403- 411. 7Xu J, Fan J, Qin X, et al. Chinese guidelines for the diagnosis and comprehensive treatment of colorectal liver metastases (version 2018). J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2019; 145(3): 725- 736. 8 Diagnosis, Treatment Guidelines For Colorectal Cancer Working Group C. Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) diagnosis and treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer 2018 (English version). Chin J Cancer Res. 2019; 31(1): 117- 134. 9Chakedis J, Squires MH, Beal EW, et al. Update on current problems in colorectal liver metastasis. Curr Probl Surg. 2017; 54(11): 554- 602. Volume10, Issue3July 2020e121 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation