Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Aug 8;21(1):241.
doi: 10.1186/s12957-023-03127-1.

Clinical outcomes of parenchymal-sparing versus anatomic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kun Wang  1 , Yin Liu  1 , Mengdi Hao  1 , Huimin Li  1 , Xiaoqing Liang  1 , Dajin Yuan  1 , Lei Ding  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Clinical outcomes of parenchymal-sparing versus anatomic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kun Wang et al. World J Surg Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: The advantages of parenchymal-sparing resection (PSR) over anatomic resection (AR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remain controversial. Here, we aim to evaluate their safety and efficacy.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term perioperative outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes for PSR and AR were performed by searching Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases.

Results: Twenty-two studies were considered eligible (totally 7228 patients: AR, n = 3154 (43.6%) vs. PSR, n = 4074 (56.4%)). Overall survival (OS, HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.95-1.22, P = 0.245) and disease-free survival (DFS, HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.94-1.28, P = 0.259) were comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences in 3-year OS, 5-year OS, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS, 3-year liver recurrence-free survival (liver-RFS) and 5-year liver-RFS. In terms of perioperative outcome, patients undergoing AR surgery were associated with prolonged operation time (WMD = 51.48 min, 95% CI: 29.03-73.93, P < 0.001), higher amount of blood loss (WMD = 189.92 ml, 95% CI: 21.39-358.45, P = 0.027), increased intraoperative blood transfusion rate (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.54-3.26, P < 0.001), prolonged hospital stay (WMD = 1.00 day, 95% CI: 0.34-1.67, P = 0.003), postoperative complications (RR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.88-2.77, P < 0.001), and 90-day mortality (RR = 3.08, 95% CI: 1.88-5.03, P < 0.001). While PSR surgery was associated with positive resection margins (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.61-0.97, P = 0.024), intrahepatic recurrence (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.98, P = 0.021) and repeat hepatectomy (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55-0.76, P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Considering relatively acceptable heterogeneity, PSR had better perioperative outcomes without compromising oncological long-term outcomes. However, these findings must be carefully interpreted, requiring more supporting evidence.

Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023445332.

Keywords: Anatomic resection; Colorectal liver metastases; Meta-analysis; Outcomes; Parenchymal-sparing resection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart of the study selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plots of the effect of AR versus PSR on overall survival (OS). Cumulative hazard ratio (HR) of overall survival (OS) (A), risk ratio (RR) of 3-year OS (B), and 5-year OS (C). HR and RR are presented with 95% CI
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plots of the effect of AR versus PSR on disease-free survival (DFS). Cumulative hazard ratio (HR) of DFS (A), risk ratio (RR) of 3-year DFS (B), and 5-year DFS (C)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plots of potential effects of AR versus PSR on short-term outcomes. Duration of operation (A), estimated blood loss (B), intraoperative blood transfusion (C), length of hospital stay (D), postoperative complications (E), and 90-day mortality (F)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plots of potential effects of AR versus PSR on short-term outcomes. Positive margin (A), intrahepatic recurrence (B), and repeat hepatectomy (C)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Siegel RL, Wagle NS, Cercek A, Smith RA, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(3):233–254. - PubMed
    1. Ciardiello F, Ciardiello D, Martini G, Napolitano S, Tabernero J, Cervantes A. Clinical management of metastatic colorectal cancer in the era of precision medicine. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(4):372–401. - PubMed
    1. Ivey GD, Johnston FM, Azad NS, Christenson ES, Lafaro KJ, Shubert CR. Current surgical management strategies for colorectal cancer liver metastases. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14(4):1063. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jones RP, Kokudo N, Folprecht G, Mise Y, Unno M, Malik HZ, et al. Colorectal liver metastases: a critical review of State of the Art. Liver Cancer. 2016;6(1):66–71. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cady B, Jenkins RL, Steele GD, Jr, Lewis WD, Stone MD, McDermott WV, et al. Surgical margin in hepatic resection for colorectal metastasis: a critical and improvable determinant of outcome. Ann Surg. 1998;227(4):566–571. - PMC - PubMed