title: Recurrence and outcomes following hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, and combined resection/ablation for colorectal liver metastases.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To examine recurrence and survival rates for patients treated with hepatic resection only, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) plus resection or RFA only for colorectal liver metastases.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Thermal destruction techniques, particularly RFA, have been rapidly accepted into surgical practice in the last 5 years. Long-term survival data following treatment of colorectal liver metastasis using RFA with or without hepatic resection are lacking.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data from 358 consecutive patients with colorectal liver metastases treated for cure with hepatic resection +/- RFA and 70 patients found at laparotomy to have liver-only disease but not to be candidates for potentially curative treatment were compared (1992-2002).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of 418 patients treated, 190 (45%) underwent resection only, 101 RFA + resection (24%), 57 RFA only (14%), and 70 laparotomy with biopsy only or arterial infusion pump placement ("chemotherapy only," 17%). RFA was used in operative candidates who could not undergo complete resection of disease. Overall recurrence was most common after RFA (84% vs. 64% RFA + resection vs. 52% resection only, P < 0.001). Liver-only recurrence after RFA was fourfold the rate after resection (44% vs. 11% of patients, P < 0.001), and true local recurrence was most common after RFA (9% of patients vs. 5% RFA + resection vs. 2% resection only, P = 0.02). Overall survival rate was highest after resection (58% at 5 years); 4-year survival after resection, RFA + resection and RFA only were 65%, 36%, and 22%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Survival for "unresectable" patients treated with RFA + resection or RFA only was greater than chemotherapy only (P = 0.0017).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Hepatic resection is the treatment of choice for colorectal liver metastases. RFA alone or in combination with resection for unresectable patients does not provide survival comparable to resection, and provides survival only slightly superior to nonsurgical treatment.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
authors.forename: Eddie K
authors.initials: EK
authors.lastname: Abdalla
authors.forename: Jean-Nicolas
authors.initials: JN
authors.lastname: Vauthey
authors.forename: Lee M
authors.initials: LM
authors.lastname: Ellis
authors.forename: Vickie
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Ellis
authors.forename: Raphael
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Pollock
authors.forename: Kristine R
authors.initials: KR
authors.lastname: Broglio
authors.forename: Kenneth
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Hess
authors.forename: Steven A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Curley
mesh_terms: D000230:Adenocarcinoma / Q000556:secondary* / Q000601:surgery; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001707:Biopsy, Needle; D017115:Catheter Ablation / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods; D015179:Colorectal Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D003131:Combined Modality Therapy; D005260:Female; D006498:Hepatectomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D007150:Immunohistochemistry; D008113:Liver Neoplasms / Q000556:secondary* / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009364:Neoplasm Recurrence, Local / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D011336:Probability; D011379:Prognosis; D016016:Proportional Hazards Models; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D016019:Survival Analysis; D016896:Treatment Outcome