Aim Lung metastases from colorectal cancer are resected in selected patients in the belief that this confers a significant survival advantage. It is generally assumed that the 5-year survival of these patients would be near zero without metastasectomy. We tested the clinical effectiveness of this practice in Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC), a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial. Method Multidisciplinary teams in 14 hospitals recruited patients with resectable lung metastases into a two-arm trial. Randomization was remote and stratified according to site, with minimization for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, number of metastases and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The trial management group was blind to patient allocation until after intention-to-treat analysis. Results From 2010 to 2016, 93 participants were randomized. These patients were 35-86 years of age and had between one and six lung metastases at a median of 2.7 years after colorectal cancer resection; 29% had prior liver metastasectomy. The patient groups were well matched and the characteristics of these groups were similar to those of observational studies. The median survival after metastasectomy was 3.5 (95% CI: 3.1-6.6) years compared with 3.8 (95% CI: 3.1-4.6) years for controls. The estimated unadjusted hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing the metastasectomy group with the control group, was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.56-1.56). Use of chemotherapy or local ablation was infrequent and similar in each group. Conclusion Patients in the control group (who did not undergo lung metastasectomy) have better survival than is assumed. Survival in the metastasectomy group is comparable with the many single-arm follow-up studies. The groups were well matched with features similar to those reported in case series.
Pulmonary metastasectomy is a commonly performed operation and is tending to increase as part of a concept of personalised treatment for advanced cancer. There have been no randomised trials; belief in effectiveness of metastasectomy is based on registry data and surgical follow-up studies. These retrospective series are comprised predominately of solitary or few metastases with primary resection to metastasectomy intervals longer than 2–3 years. Five-year survival rates of 30–50% are recorded, but as case selection is based on favourable prognostic features, an apparent association between metastasectomy and survival cannot be interpreted as causation. Cancers for which lung metastasectomy is used are considered in four pathological groups. In non-seminomatous germ cell tumour, for which chemotherapy is highly effective, excision of residual pulmonary disease guides future treatment and in particular allows an informed decisions as to further chemotherapy. Sarcoma metastasises predominately to lung and pulmonary metastasectomy for both bone and soft tissues sarcoma is routinely considered as a treatment option but without randomised data. The commonest circumstance for lung and liver metastasectomy is colorectal cancer. Repeated resections and ablations are commonplace but without evidence of effectiveness for either. For melanoma, results are particularly poor, but lung metastases are resected when no other treatment options are available. In this review, the available evidence is considered and the conclusion reached is that in the absence of randomised trials there is uncertainty about effectiveness. A randomised controlled trial, Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC), is in progress and randomised trials in sarcoma seem warranted.
Purpose Multidisciplinary management improves complex treatment decision making in cancer care, but its impact for bladder cancer (BC) has not been documented. Although radical cystectomy (RC) currently is viewed as the standard of care for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), radiotherapybased, bladder-sparing trimodal therapy (TMT) that combines transurethral resection of bladder tumor, chemotherapy for radiation sensitization, and external beam radiotherapy has emerged as a valid treatment option. In the absence of randomized studies, this study compared the oncologic outcomes between patients treated with RC or TMT by using a propensity score matched-cohort analysis. Methods Data from patients treated in a multidisciplinary bladder cancer clinic (MDBCC) from 2008 to 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. Those who received TMT for MIBC were identified and matched (for sex, cT and cN stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, Charlson comorbidity score, treatment date, age, carcinoma in situ status, and hydronephrosis) with propensity scores to patients who underwent RC. Overall survival and disease-specific survival (DSS) were assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling and a competing risk analysis, respectively. Results A total of 112 patients with MIBC were included after matching (56 who had been treated with TMT, and 56 who underwent RC). The median age was 68.0 years, and 29.5% had stage cT3/cT4 disease. At a median follow-up of 4.51 years, there were 20 deaths (35.7%) in the RC group (13 as a result of BC) and 22 deaths (39.3%) in the TMT group (13 as a result of BC). The 5-year DSS rate was 73.2% and 76.6% in the RC and TMT groups, respectively (P = .49). Salvage cystectomy was performed in 6 (10.7%) of 56 patients who received TMT. Conclusion In the setting of a MDBCC, TMT yielded survival outcomes similar to those of matched patients who underwent RC. Appropriately selected patients with MIBC should be offered the opportunity to discuss various treatment options, including organ-sparing TMT.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.