Roh, Mark S.

Purpose Prior trials have shown that surgery followed by hepatic artery infusion (HAI) of floxuridine (FUDR) alternating with systemic fluorouracil improves survival rates. Oxaliplatin combined with capecitabine has demonstrated activity in advanced colorectal cancer. Based on this observation a trial was conducted to assess the potential benefit of systemic oxaliplatin and capecitabine alternating with HAI of FUDR. The primary end point was 2-year survival. Patients and Methods Patients with liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer amenable to resection or cryoablation were eligible. HAI and systemic therapy was initiated after metastasectomy. Alternating courses of HAI consisted of 0.2 mg/m2/d FUDR and dexamethasone, day 1 through 14 weeks 1 and 2. Systemic therapy included oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 day 1 with capecitabine at 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily, days 1 through 14, weeks 4 and 5. Two additional 3-week courses of systemic therapy were given. Capecitabine was reduced to 850 mg/m2 twice daily after interim review of toxicity. Results Fifty-five of 76 eligible patients were able to initiate protocol-directed therapy and completed median of six cycles (range, one to six). Three postoperative or treatment-related deaths were reported. Overall, 88% of evaluable patients were alive at 2 years. With a median follow-up of 4.8 years, a total of 30 patients have had disease recurrence, 11 involving the liver. Median disease-free survival was 32.7 months. Conclusion Alternating HAI of FUDR and systemic capecitabine and oxaliplatin met the prespecified end point of higher than 85% survival at 2 years and was clinically tolerable. However, the merits of this approach need to be established with a phase III trial.

Purpose Most patients with colorectal liver metastases present to general surgeons and oncologists without a specialist interest in their management. Since treatment strategy is frequently dependent on the response to earlier treatments, our aim was to create a therapeutic decision model identifying appropriate procedure sequences. Methods We used the RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) assessing strategies of resection, local ablation and chemotherapy. After a comprehensive literature review, an expert panel rated appropriateness of each treatment option for a total of 1,872 ratings decisions in 252 cases. A decision model was constructed, consensus measured and results validated using 48 virtual cases, and 34 real cases with known outcomes. Results Consensus was achieved with overall agreement rates of 93.4 to 99.1%. Absolute resection contraindications included unresectable extrahepatic disease, more than 70% liver involvement, liver failure, and being surgically unfit. Factors not influencing treatment strategy were age, primary tumor stage, timing of metastases detection, past blood transfusion, liver resection type, pre-resection carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and previous hepatectomy. Immediate resection was appropriate with adequate radiologically-defined resection margins and no portal adenopathy; other factors included presence of ≤ 4 or > 4 metastases and unilobar or bilobar involvement. Resection was appropriate postchemotherapy, independent of tumor response in the case of ≤ 4 metastases and unilobar liver involvement. Resection was appropriate only for > 4 metastases or bilobar liver involvement, after tumor shrinkage with chemotherapy. When possible, resection was preferred to local ablation. Conclusion The results were incorporated into a decision matrix, creating a computer program (OncoSurge). This model identifies individual patient resectability, recommending optimal treatment strategies. It may also be used for medical education.

Abstract The Editors welcome topical correspondence from readers relating to articles published in the Journal. Responses can be sent electronically via the BJS website (www.bjs.co.uk) or by post. All letters will be reviewed and, if approved, appear on the website. A selection of these will be edited and published in the Journal. Letters must be no more than 250 words in length. Letters submitted by post should be typed on A4-sized paper in double spacing and should be accompanied by a disk.