Abstract
Approximately 20–25% of patients with rectal cancer present with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. The incidence of metastases varies between different stages, where patients with locally advanced or node-positive tumors have a higher risk for metastatic disease compared to patients with early tumors. The risk and pattern of metastasis are also highly dependent on histological subtype. Patients with rectal cancer and distant metastases are nowadays accurately staged, and appropriate treatment regimens can be applied to each patient. Treatment of patients who present with rectal cancer and distant metastases depends primarily on the condition, age, and frailty of the patients, but obviously resectability of the primary tumor and the metastases is important. Involvement of modern multimodality treatment and thorough discussions in a multidisciplinary tumor board is important in optimizing patient outcome.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Approximately 20–25% of patients with colorectal cancer present with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis [1, 2]. The incidence of metastases varies between different stages, where patients with locally advanced or node-positive tumors have a higher risk for metastatic disease compared to patients with early tumors. The risk and pattern of metastasis are also highly dependent on location of the colorectal tumor and histological subtype. As an example, histological subtypes such as mucinous adenocarcinoma have more often peritoneal metastases, and signet ring cell tumors have more often distant lymph node metastases [3]. Lung metastases are more often found in rectal cancer patients as compared to colon cancer patients, and the incidence is increasing over time, probably due to current improvements in imaging techniques [2]. Nowadays, nearly all colorectal cancer patients are staged with CT of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, whereas in the past only abdominal ultrasound and chest X-rays were performed. As a result, patients with rectal cancer and distant metastases are now accurately staged, and appropriate treatment regimens can be applied to each patient. Treatment of patients who present with rectal cancer and distant metastases depends primarily on the condition, age, and frailty of the patients, but obviously resectability of the primary tumor and the metastases is important. Involvement of modern multimodality treatment and thorough discussions in a multidisciplinary tumor board is important in optimizing patient outcome [4].
2 Rectal Cancer with Resectable Metastases
The majority of patients with metastases who undergo treatment of both the primary and the metastases have liver metastases. There are many papers in the literature describing results of patients undergoing resection for liver metastases with overall survival rates of 30–60% depending on the characteristics of the study population [5,6,7,8]. Various factors for the selection of patients who benefit most of resection have been described [9,10,11]. The most well-known clinical criteria are those established by Fong, which contains the following risk factors: a CEA level >200 ng/ml, the node positivity of the primary tumor, number of liver metastases (>1) and size of the metastases (>5 cm), and a disease-free interval between primary tumor and metastases shorter than 12 months [10]. This last item is also included in this risk score, because survival of these patients is slightly lower compared to metachronous disease, although literature on this subject is contradictory [10, 12,13,14]. At present, metastasectomy should be considered for all patients with colorectal liver metastases when the patient is fit for surgery, when the expected remnant liver is at least 20% of the preoperative volume and if resection is possible with regard to vascular and biliary structures and when no unresectable extrahepatic metastases are present [15, 16].
As the criteria for resectability are evolving fast, determining resectability is challenging for non-liver surgeons. Even in high-volume centers (UK cancer network), almost two-thirds of patients with tumors deemed unresectable by non-liver surgeons were considered potentially resectable by a panel of specialist liver surgeons [17]. Therefore, patients with liver metastases should be discussed in hospitals with liver surgeons. On the other hand, it should be remarked that there is considerable interindividual variation in the decision-making process between liver surgeons [18], which highlights the importance of multidisciplinary liver tumor boards to optimize timing of surgical intervention and multidisciplinary treatment. A recent study in the Netherlands reported that between 2004 and 2012, the number of patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous metastases who underwent liver surgery increased from 4% to 24%, which can probably in part be contributed to improved referral patterns [8]. Several studies from different countries have demonstrated that there is still a considerable variation in the utilization of liver resection, which might indicate that further optimalization of the evaluation of resectability will potentially lead to an important improvement in the identification of patients and might potentially lead to an improvement in overall survival [6].
Also surgical removal of extrahepatic metastases can often lead to long-term survival, such as resection of lung metastases [19] or cytoreductive surgery of peritoneal metastases in combination with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) [20].
2.1 Systemic Therapy
If metastases are considered resectable, systemic chemotherapy is not necessary in these patients. Results from the EORTC intergroup trial 40,983 demonstrated no survival benefit in patients with resectable liver metastases with or without pre- and postoperative chemotherapy [21]. Two retrospective studies demonstrated only a potential benefit for (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk patients according to the Fong criteria [22, 23]. Systemic therapy should therefore preferably only be used in a randomized trial and not as standard therapy for patients with resectable liver metastases [24]. Although systemic therapy is not strictly indicated for treating liver metastases, several options are possible depending on the need for radiotherapy of the rectal cancer. If the rectal tumor has no obvious signs of lymph node involvement and the mesorectal fascia is not threatened, rectal surgery without additional treatment is possible. However, most patients with metastatic disease will have locally advanced tumors which need some form of radiotherapy for the rectal tumor in order to prevent local recurrence and improve overall survival.
2.2 “Liver-First Approach”
Although no data in the literature describe an improved outcome for patients treated with the “liver-first approach,” it seems a promising and straightforward way of treating patients without losing time to treat the primary rectal tumor. Patients who undergo 5-FU-based chemoradiation therapy for 5 weeks and have another 8–10 weeks waiting time before undergoing rectal surgery have to wait at least 3 months before liver metastases can be treated. The time to undergo liver surgery might even be further prolonged in case of complications which is not uncommon in colorectal surgery. Using this liver-first approach, the liver metastases are preferably treated before or in the waiting time after (chemo)radiation therapy. With this approach, good results have been reported with a high number of patients undergoing both liver and rectal surgeries [25,26,27]. A possible concern for this approach is the progression of disease in initially resectable patients. However, if patients show progression of the primary tumor after resection of the liver metastases, it is a sign of less favorable disease, and further unnecessary colorectal surgery in such cases can be avoided.
2.3 “One-Staged or Two-Staged Resection”
Treatment of the primary tumor and the liver metastases can be performed in one surgical procedure. Obviously this depends on the availability of both an experienced colorectal and liver surgeon but also on the extent of the surgical procedure. The combination of a major liver resection and rectal surgery has a higher risk of complications; however, by omitting a secondary resection, the total amount of complications and total hospital stay and costs are lower in a one-staged approach. Arguments for a two-staged resection of the primary and liver metastases are the opportunity for recovery between surgeries and the possibility for selection of patients with less favorable disease, meaning patients with progression of disease after initial resection [28, 29]. Although there are different advantages to each of the two techniques concerning the short-term results, reports have been described which show excellent results for the one-staged surgery. Furthermore, no differences are found concerning the overall survival between a one-staged and two-staged approach [29,30,31]. Since the outcomes between the two treatment strategies are comparable, the choice for either one- or two-staged surgery should depend on individual patient characteristics such as tumor burden and expected technical difficulties during surgery. For example, patient who would undergo a straightforward procedure for both primary and liver metastases could be eligible for a one-staged approach. However, if patients present with borderline resectable or initially unresectable disease which require downstaging, preference should be given to a more staged approach [32].
3 Rectal Cancer with Unresectable Metastases
Liver metastases can be unresectable at the time of diagnoses due to the number of metastases, lack of reserve liver parenchyma, ill location, or the presence of extrahepatic disease. Especially in patients with liver-only metastases, various treatment modalities have been introduced in recent years such as induction systemic therapy, two-staged liver resection, portal embolization, and different ablation techniques [18, 33,34,35].
3.1 Potentially Resectable Metastases
Neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is widely used for potentially resectable liver metastases and makes tumors resectable in 15–60% of cases with excellent results [18, 33]. Again, criteria for being not resectable before or after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy are not well defined as well as the optimal systemic therapy. Not only the presence of dedicated liver surgeons but also a dedicated medical oncologist is demonstrated to be important in considering patients suitable for neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with liver metastases [36]. A nationwide trial with a liver expert panel and various induction therapy options is now running in the Netherlands to study and determine the optimal treatment [37].
Other treatment options to provide curative treatment to patients with unresectable liver metastases have been developed including but not limited to cryosurgery, microwave ablation (MWA), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Of these different modalities, RFA is currently the most used, which uses alternating current to induce coagulation at the site of the tumor [35]. RFA can be performed either during the surgery (open/laparoscopic) or percutaneously. The open/laparoscopic approach is most invasive but has the benefit that it can be combined with additional resections [38]. RFA shows low complications rates, typically ranging between 6% and 9%; however, patients develop more often local recurrent disease. Ablative techniques achieve the highest local success in solitary tumors or few metastases (≤5) no larger than 3 cm in diameter. Despite the higher rate of local recurrence, the 5-year overall survival of patients with limited hepatic metastases treated with RFA is reported around 40%. In case resection is not possible, even after downstaging, RFA provides an increased survival as compared to palliative chemotherapy and should be used in clinical practice on a case-by-case basis [38,39,40].
3.2 Unresectable Metastases
In the majority of patients, metastases have spread in such way that no curative options are available. Treatment in patients with unresectable metastatic CRC should be based on two objectives: first, to improve or maintain the quality of life, and, secondly, to prolong the survival. The increasing use of palliative systemic therapy during the past two decades has led to a remarkable increase in overall survival [41].
Traditionally, primary tumor resection was preferred in patients with incurable stage IV rectal cancer to prevent, or treat, complications such as bleeding, obstruction, and perforation [42]. When such complications do already exist, the indication for surgery seems obvious. However, in some cases, the tumor might be unresectable, or surgery is not feasible for other reasons (e.g., because of the patient’s condition). In such cases, stenting could provide feasible palliation for patients with bowel obstruction [43].
In recent years, prophylactic resection of the primary tumor in asymptomatic patients has become more controversial. The 30-day mortality rates after elective surgery of the primary tumor in patients with stage IV disease range between 1.3% and 11.7%, which is higher than reported after surgery in stage I–III patients [44]. Additionally, initial resection delays starting chemotherapy, and local control might be reached with systemic treatment and/or radiation as well [45,46,47]. Indeed, when no resection is performed, only a small portion of patients would require surgical treatment for complications of the primary tumor [48,49,50]. On the other hand, retrospective studies show that survival of patients with synchronous unresectable metastatic disease is significantly higher in patients who underwent resection of the primary tumor, compared to patients with the primary tumor in situ [51,52,53,54]. Currently, several randomized controlled trials are ongoing to investigate the benefit of palliative primary tumor resection in asymptomatic patients [55, 56].
Conclusion
Management of rectal cancer patients with synchronous metastases is a common clinical challenge, and treatment is based on various clinical items. Many treatment options are available for rectal cancer patients with metastatic disease depending on the general condition of the patient and extent of both the primary tumor and the metastases. A patient-tailored multidisciplinary approach is essential to give each patient the best available treatment. Various international studies are currently including patients in randomized trials to further define the best curative and palliative options for rectal cancer patients with synchronous metastases.
References
van der Pool AE et al (2012) Trends in incidence, treatment and survival of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: a population-based series. Color Dis 14(1):56–61
van der Geest LG et al (2015) Nationwide trends in incidence, treatment and survival of colorectal cancer patients with synchronous metastases. Clin Exp Metastasis 32(5):457–465
Hugen N et al (2014) Metastatic pattern in colorectal cancer is strongly influenced by histological subtype. Ann Oncol 25(3):651–657
Schmoll HJ et al (2012) ESMO consensus guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. A personalized approach to clinical decision making. Ann Oncol 23(10):2479–2516
Kanas GP et al (2012) Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors. Clin Epidemiol 4:283–301
Morris EJ et al (2010) Surgical management and outcomes of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Br J Surg 97(7):1110–1118
Ayez N et al (2013) Preoperative FDG-PET-scan in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases does not improve overall survival: a retrospective analyses stratified by clinical risk score. Dig Surg 30(4–6):451–458
t Lam-Boer J et al (2015) Large variation in the utilization of liver resections in stage IV colorectal cancer patients with metastases confined to the liver. Eur J Surg Oncol 41(9):1217–1225
Nordlinger B et al (1996) Surgical resection of colorectal carcinoma metastases to the liver. A prognostic scoring system to improve case selection, based on 1568 patients. Association Francaise de Chirurgie. Cancer 77(7):1254–1262
Fong Y et al (1999) Clinical score for predicting recurrence after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of 1001 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 230(3):309–318. discussion 318-21
Rees M et al (2008) Evaluation of long-term survival after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multifactorial model of 929 patients. Ann Surg 247(1):125–135
Dexiang Z et al (2012) Outcome of patients with colorectal liver metastasis: analysis of 1,613 consecutive cases. Ann Surg Oncol 19(9):2860–2868
Bockhorn M et al (2008) Survival of patients with synchronous and metachronous colorectal liver metastases – is there a difference? J Gastrointest Surg 12(8):1399–1405
Miller G et al (2007) Outcomes after resection of synchronous or metachronous hepatic and pulmonary colorectal metastases. J Am Coll Surg 205(2):231–238
Nordlinger B et al (2007) Does chemotherapy prior to liver resection increase the potential for cure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer? A report from the European colorectal metastases treatment group. Eur J Cancer 43(14):2037–2045
Alberts SR, Poston GJ (2011) Treatment advances in liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 10(4):258–265
Jones RP et al (2012) Effect of specialist decision-making on treatment strategies for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 99(9):1263–1269
Folprecht G et al (2010) Tumour response and secondary resectability of colorectal liver metastases following neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cetuximab: the CELIM randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 11(1):38–47
Andres A et al (2015) Surgical management of patients with colorectal cancer and simultaneous liver and lung metastases. Br J Surg 102(6):691–699
Kuijpers AM et al (2013) Cytoreduction and HIPEC in the Netherlands: nationwide long-term outcome following the Dutch protocol. Ann Surg Oncol 20(13):4224–4230
Nordlinger B et al (2013) Perioperative FOLFOX4 chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC 40983): long-term results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(12):1208–1215
Ayez N et al (2015) The use of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases: clinical risk score as possible discriminator. Eur J Surg Oncol 41(7):859–867
Rahbari NN et al (2014) Adjuvant therapy after resection of colorectal liver metastases: the predictive value of the MSKCC clinical risk score in the era of modern chemotherapy. BMC Cancer 14:174
Ayez N et al (2015) Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone in high-risk patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases: the CHARISMA randomized multicenter clinical trial. BMC Cancer 15:180
Mentha G et al (2008) ‘Liver first’ approach in the treatment of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases. Dig Surg 25(6):430–435
Verhoef C et al (2009) The “liver-first approach” for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases. Dis Colon Rectum 52(1):23–30
Ayez N et al (2013) Long-term results of the “liver first” approach in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases. Dis Colon Rectum 56(3):281–287
Li ZQ et al (2013) Meta-analysis of simultaneous versus staged resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases. Hepatol Res 43(1):72–83
Silberhumer GR et al (2014) Simultaneous resection for rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis is a safe procedure. Am J Surg 206:935–942
Capussotti L et al (2007) Major liver resections synchronous with colorectal surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 14(1):195–201
Kelly ME et al (2015) Synchronous colorectal liver metastasis: a network meta-analysis review comparing classical, combined, and liver-first surgical strategies. J Surg Oncol 111(3):341–351
Siriwardena AK et al (2014) Management of colorectal cancer presenting with synchronous liver metastases. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11(8):446–459
Adam R et al (2007) Two-stage hepatectomy approach for initially unresectable colorectal hepatic metastases. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 16(3):525–536. viii
Fusai G, Davidson BR (2003) Strategies to increase the resectability of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Dig Surg 20(6):481–496
Pathak S et al (2011) Ablative therapies for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review. Color Dis 13(9):e252–e265
Homayounfar K et al (2014) Discrepancies between medical oncologists and surgeons in assessment of resectability and indication for chemotherapy in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 101(5):550–557
Huiskens J et al (2015) Treatment strategies in colorectal cancer patients with initially unresectable liver-only metastases, a study protocol of the randomised phase 3 CAIRO5 study of the Dutch colorectal cancer group (DCCG). BMC Cancer 15:365
Wong SL et al (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2009 clinical evidence review on radiofrequency ablation of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(3):493–508
Crocetti L, de Baere T, Lencioni R (2010) Quality improvement guidelines for radiofrequency ablation of liver tumours. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33(1):11–17
Hompes D, Prevoo W, Ruers T (2011) Radiofrequency ablation as a treatment tool for liver metastases of colorectal origin. Cancer Imaging 11:23–30
Elferink MA et al (2010) Marked improvements in survival of patients with rectal cancer in the Netherlands following changes in therapy, 1989-2006. Eur J Cancer 46(8):1421–1429
Bacon HE, Martin PV (1964) The rationale of palliative resection for primary cancer of the Colon and Rectum complicated by liver and lung metastasis. Dis Colon Rectum 7:211–217
Takahashi H et al (2015) Self-expanding metallic stents versus surgical intervention as palliative therapy for obstructive colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg 39(8):2037–2044
Eisenberger A, Whelan RL, Neugut AI (2008) Survival and symptomatic benefit from palliative primary tumor resection in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a review. Int J Color Dis 23(6):559–568
Chau I et al (2006) Neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin followed by synchronous chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision in magnetic resonance imaging-defined poor-risk rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(4):668–674
Poultsides GA, Paty PB (2011) Reassessing the need for primary tumor surgery in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer: overview and perspective. Ther Adv Med Oncol 3(1):35–42
Nash GM et al (2002) Radical resection of rectal cancer primary tumor provides effective local therapy in patients with stage IV disease. Ann Surg Oncol 9(10):954–960
Suarez J et al (2015) Complications from the primary tumour are not related with survival in patients with synchronous stage IV colorectal cancer receiving chemotherapy without primary tumour resection. Int J Color Dis 30:1357–1363
Poultsides GA et al (2009) Outcome of primary tumor in patients with synchronous stage IV colorectal cancer receiving combination chemotherapy without surgery as initial treatment. J Clin Oncol 27(20):3379–3384
Yun JA et al (2014) Risk factors for the requirement of surgical or endoscopic interventions during chemotherapy in patients with uncomplicated colorectal cancer and unresectable synchronous metastases. J Surg Oncol 110(7):839–844
Venderbosch S et al (2011) Prognostic value of resection of primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: retrospective analysis of two randomized studies and a review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol 18(12):3252–3260
Tarantino I et al (2015) Prognostic relevance of palliative primary tumor removal in 37,793 metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a population-based, propensity score-adjusted trend analysis. Ann Surg 262(1):112–120
Sarela AI et al (2001) Non-operative management of the primary tumour in patients with incurable stage IV colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 88(10):1352–1356
van de Velde CJ (2015) Surgery: palliative primary tumour resection in mCRC-debate continues. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 12(3):129–130
t Lam-Boer J et al (2014) The CAIRO4 study: the role of surgery of the primary tumour with few or absent symptoms in patients with synchronous unresectable metastases of colorectal cancer – a randomized phase III study of the Dutch colorectal cancer group (DCCG). BMC Cancer 14:741
Rahbari NN et al (2012) Resection of the primary tumour versus no resection prior to systemic therapy in patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases (UICC stage IV): SYNCHRONOUS – a randomised controlled multicentre trial (ISRCTN30964555). BMC Cancer 12:142
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Wilt, J.H.W., van Amerongen, M.J., ‘t Lam-Boer, J. (2018). What Are the Surgical Options in Patients with Synchronous Rectal Cancer?. In: Valentini, V., Schmoll, HJ., van de Velde, C. (eds) Multidisciplinary Management of Rectal Cancer. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43217-5_53
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43217-5_53
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43215-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43217-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)