Systematic Reviews
Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Jul 15, 2021; 13(7): 732-757
Published online Jul 15, 2021. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v13.i7.732
Table 1 Study details of studies concerning outcomes
Ref. Year Country Study design Number of patients Age in yr Abu Hilal et al [24 ] 2012 United Kingdom Retrosp. 83 66 (32-85) Abu Hilal et al [71 ] 2010 United Kingdom Retrosp. 50 66 (17)1 Allard et al [60 ] 2015 France Retrosp., PSM 176 65.1 ± 11 Barkhatov et al [25 ] 2016 Norway Retrosp. 144 69 (30-89) Beard et al [43 ] 2015 United States Retrosp., PSM 115 61 ± 12 Beppu et al [72 ] 2015 Japan Retrosp., PSM 171 - Berardi et al [73 ] 2017 Belgium, Norway, United Kingdom, Italy Retrosp. 1048 - Castaing et al [32 ] 2009 France Retrosp. 60 62 ± 11 Chen et al [74 ] 2018 China Retrosp. 156 - Cheung et al [48 ] 2013 China Retrosp., case-matched control 20 57.5 (42-74) Cipriani et al [75 ] 2015 United Kingdom Retrosp. 142 - Cipriani et al [29 ] 2016 United Kingdom Retrosp., PSM 133 - D’Hondt et al [76 ] 2018 Belgium Retrosp. 136 - de’Angelis et al [44 ] 2015 France Retrosp., PSM 52 63 (32-81) Efanov et al [77 ] 2018 Russia Retrosp., PSM 60 - Eveno et al [78 ] 2016 France, Spain, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Switzerland Retrosp., PSM 585 - Fretland et al [12 ] 2019 Norway RCT 133 - Fretland et al [9 ] 2018 Norway RCT 133 67 ± 8 Goumard et al [45 ] 2018 United States Retrosp., PSM 43 59 (26-78) Guerron et al [50 ] 2013 United States Retrosp. 40 66.2 ± 1.9 Hirokawa et al [79 ] 2014 United States Retrosp., matched-pair 46 - Inoue et al [80 ] 2013 Japan Retrosp. 23 66.1 ± 9.6 Iwahashi et al [81 ] 2014 United States Retrosp., matched-pair 21 67.5 (47-92) Karagkounis et al [46 ] 2016 United States Retrosp., case-control 65 64 (54-71)1 Kasai et al [82 ] 2018 Belgium RCT 20 65.2 (40.4-86.1) Kazaryan et al [26 ] 2010 Norway Retrosp. 107 - Kazaryan et al [83 ] 2010 Norway Retrosp. 96 - Kubota et al [51 ] 2014 Japan Retrosp. 43 64.4 ± 11.4 Langella et al [52 ] 2015 Italy Retrosp., case-control 37 63 (37-86) Lewin et al [84 ] 2016 Australia Retrosp., PSM 146 - Martínez-Cecilia et al [30 ] 2017 United Kingdom, Italy, France, Belgium, Norway Retrosp., PSM 225 75 (70-87)1 Nguyen et al [31 ] 2009 United States, France Retrosp. 109 63 (32-88) Nomi et al [27 ] 2016 France, Japan Retrosp., case-matched 120 61 (26-89) Postriganova et al [28 ] 2014 Norway Retrosp. 155 66 (35-84) Qiu et al [41 ] 2013 China Retrosp., comparative cohort 30 52.5 ± 11.5 Ratti et al [53 ] 2018 Italy Retrosp., PSM 104 62 (35-81) Robles-Campos et al [49 ] 2019 Spain RCT 96 66 (58-72)1 Shelat et al [85 ] 2015 Singapore Retrosp. 22 - Shim et al [54 ] 2018 South Korea Retrosp. 22 65.5 ± 8.9 Tabchouri et al [70 ] 2018 France Retrosp. 302 64.4 ± 11.1 Tohme et al [55 ] 2015 United States Retrosp., case-matched 66 62.1 (11.2)1 Topal et al [86 ] 2012 Belgium Retrosp. 81 64.3 (35.4-83) Vibert et al [87 ] 2006 France Retrosp. 37 - Yue et al [39 ] 2018 China Retrosp. 78 74 (70-78) Yun et al [88 ] 2012 South Korea Retrosp. 23 - Zeng et al [56 ] 2016 China Retrosp., PSM 79 69 (65-75) Andorra et al [89 ] 2013 Spain Retrosp. 21 - Abu Hilal et al [90 ] 2011 United Kingdom Retrosp., case-control 21 64 (26-82) Nomi et al [57 ] 2015 France Retrosp., case-matched 93 64 (32-85) Topal et al [58 ] 2013 Belgium Retrosp., case-matched 20 - Vavra et al [63 ] 2015 Czech Republic, United Kingdom Prosp., cohort 25 62.1 ± 10.3 Montalti et al [91 ] 2016 Belgium Retrosp., PSM 44 - Okuno et al [42 ] 2018 United States Retrosp., PSM 29 54 (27-78) Portigliotti et al [92 ] 2017 France, Italy Retrosp. 78 62.3 (37.8-86.0) Scuderi et al [93 ] 2017 Belgium, Norway, Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, France Retrosp., PSM 49 - Efanov et al [94 ] 2020 Russia Retrosp. PSM 51 59 (41-84) Aghayan et al [47 ] 2017 Norway Retrosp. 296 66 (29-89) Montalti et al [33 ] 2015 Belgium Retrosp. 114 66.4 ± 0.89 Okumura et al [95 ] 2019 France Retrosp., PSM 82 65 (33-83) Martínez-Cecilia et al [62 ] 2018 United Kingdom, Spain Retrosp. 21 - Berti et al [40 ] 2015 Germany Retrosp. 35 71 (35-82) Dagher et al [61 ] 2016 United States Retrosp., PSM 89 66.6 ± 10.8 Ferretti et al [64 ] 2015 France, United States, Italy, South Korea Retrosp. 142 66 (32-85) Jung et al [96 ] 2014 South Korea Retrosp., case-match 24 60 (43-75) Ratti et al [65 ] 2016 Italy Retrosp., PSM 25 60 (37-80) Shin et al [34 ] 2019 South Korea Retrosp., PSM 109 56 ± 11 van der Poel et al [97 ] 2019 The Netherlands, Belgium Retrosp., PSM 61 64 ± 13.1 Xu et al [35 ] 2018 China Retrosp. PSM 20 58.2 ± 10.66 Okumura et al [59 ] 2019 France Retrosp., PSM 38 62 (32-85) Nomi et al [36 ] 2016 France Retrosp. 208 - Hallet et al [37 ] 2017 France Retrosp,. PSM 27 63.6 (59.0-70.9) van der Poel et al [38 ] 2019 United Kingdom Retrosp., PSM 271 63 ± 11
Table 2 Study details of studies concerning prognostic factors
Ref. Year Country Study design Specific for LLR? Number of patients Age in yr Langella et al [52 ] 2015 Italy Retrosp., case-control No 74 - Nomi et al [27 ] 2016 France, Japan Retrosp., case-matched Yes 120 61 (26-89) Postriganova et al [28 ] 2014 Norway Retrosp. Yes 155 66 (35-84) Tabchouri et al [70 ] 2018 France Retrosp. Yes 302 64.4 ± 11.1 Tohme et al [55 ] 2015 United States Retrosp., case-matched No 132 - Topal et al [86 ] 2012 Belgium Retrosp. No 274 - Yue et al [39 ] 2018 China Retrosp. Yes 241 - Zeng et al [56 ] 2016 China Retrosp., PSM No 158 - Montalti et al [33 ] 2015 Belgium Retrosp. Yes 114 66.4 ± 0.89 Cervantes et al [98 ] 2019 France Retrosp. Yes 227 - De Haas et al [99 ] 2009 The Netherlands Retrosp. No 796 - Jones et al [100 ] 2014 United Kingdom Retrosp. cohort No, only open 73 69.1 (59.8-73.9)1 Ratti et al [101 ] 2019 France, Italy Retrosp., PSM Yes 146 - Nieropet al [102 ] 2019 The Netherlands, Belgium, United States Retrosp. No 1302 -
Table 3 Operative outcomes
Ref. Blood loss (mL) Operative time (min) Intraoperative blood transfusion (%) Conversion rate (%) Major resection proportion (%) R0 resection proportion (%) LLR in general Abu Hilal et al [24 ] 300 (20-3000) 220 (40-540) - 8 - - Abu Hilal et al [71 ] 363 (500)1 220 (145)1 2 12 - 96 Allard et al [60 ] - - - 1.7 - 85.8 Barkhatov et al [25 ] 250 (0-4000) 180 (41-488) - 1.4 - - Beard et al [43 ] - - - - - 77.4 Beppu et al [72 ] - 282 (60-1120) 8.4 - 6 90 Castaing et al [32 ] - 278 ± 123 15 10 43 87 Chen et al [74 ] - - - - - 93.6 Cheung et al [48 ] 200 (10-1300) 180 (58-460) 0 - - - Cipriani et al [29 ] 400 (10-2800) 295 (10-540) - 9.8 48.9 92.5 de’Angelis et al [44 ] 200 (50-550) 210.5 (60-420) 5.8 5.8 - 82.7 Efanov et al [77 ] - - - 3 - - Fretland et al [9 ] 300 (224 -375)2 123 (108-138)2 - 2 - - Goumard et al [45 ] 100 (10 - 805) - - - - 81 Guerron et al [50 ] 376 ± 122 239 ± 17 5 - - - Inoue et al [80 ] 99 ± 207 204 ± 101 4.3 4.2 - - Iwahashi et al [81 ] 198 ± 39 377 ± 29 - - - - Karagkounis et al [46 ] 200 (50-500)1 235 (185-307)1 4.6 7.7 - 78.5 Kasai et al [82 ] 50 (0-500) 268 ± 104 - - 18.2 - Kazaryan et al [26 ] 300 (< 50-> 5000) 192 (64-635) 16 4.2 - 93.4 Kubota et al [51 ] 287.3 ± 459.3 333.9 ± 150.3 2.4 - - - Langella et al [52 ] 100 ± 143.7 - 0 - 5.4 - Lewin et al [84 ] - - - - 27 - Martínez-Cecilia et al [30 ] 250 (10-2600)1 230 (30-555)1 11 7.6 21 88 Nguyen et al [31 ] 200 (20-2500) 234 (60-555) 10 3.1 45 94.4 Nomi et al [27 ] 200 (0-3000) 245 (60-540) 13.3 6.7 69.2 94.2 Postriganova et al [28 ] 250 (0-4000) 152 (29-488) - 3.2 - - Qiu et al [41 ] 215 ± 170 235 ± 70 - 6.7 - - Ratti et al [53 ] 250 (100-900) 220 (150-540) 7.7 15.4 26.9 - Robles-Campos et al [49 ] 100 (50-300)1 120 (90-180)1 4.2 - 11.5 95.8 Shim et al [54 ] 100 (30-950) 135 (40-360) 9.1 - 9.1 - Tabchouri et al [70 ] - - - - 39 - Tohme et al [55 ] 150 (50-150)1 - 12 - 23 88 Topal et al [86 ] 50 (10-300)1 120 (80-200)1 - - 22 - Yue et al [39 ] 260 (180-430) 180 (160-260) 5 7.7 - 78 Zeng et al [56 ] 250 (160-420) 200 (150-230) - - - - Major LLR Abu Hilal et al [24 ] 875 (75-3000) 330 (180-540) - 19 33 - Abu Hilal et al [90 ] 700 (75-3000) 300 (180-465) 22 - 100 95 Nomi et al [57 ] 300 (10-3000) 274 (100-540) 10.8 10.8 100 91.4 Topal et al [58 ] 550 (100-4000) 257.5 (75-360) - - 100 95 Minor LLR Abu Hilal et al [24 ] 175 (20-1400) 180 (40-340) - 4 33 - Vavra et al [63 ] 132.3 ± 218 166.4 ± 81.5 - - 0 - LLR of posterosuperior segments Okuno et al [42 ] 100 (10-800) 217 (62-586) 3.5 - 13.8 86.2 Portigliotti et al [92 ] 195 (0-1300) 195 (40-600) 1.2 2.5 - - Efanov et al [94 ] 282 (0-3300) 327 (80-755) - - - - Parenchyma sparing LLR Aghayan et al [47 ] 200 (< 50-4000) 134 (20-373) - 1.7 - 81 Montalti et al [33 ] 250 (0-2800) 276 ± 10.1 - 14.9 7 - Okumura et al [95 ] 120 (0-2900) 196 (20-480) 2.4 3.7 - 96.3 Simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection Berti et al [40 ] 200 (70-1000) 240 (120-450) - 0 - - Dagher et al [61 ] 229 ± 228 332 ± 110 8 7 8 90 Ferretti et al [64 ] 200 (0-1800) 360 (120-690) 8.5 4.9 - - Jung et al [96 ] 325 (50-900) 290 (183-551) - 0 - - Ratti et al [65 ] 350 (100-1000) 420 (170-720) 8 4 24 - Shin et al [34 ] - 336 ± 119 13.8 2.8 29.4 - van der Poel et al [97 ] 200 (100-700)1 206 (166-308)1 - 5 0 93 Xu et al [35 ] 175 (100-275) 246.75 ± 78.20 20 - 20 - Two-stage hepatectomy Okumura et al [59 ] FSH 50 (0-350) 159 (70-415) 0 3 - 97 SSH 225 (50-1300) 305 (150-480) 13 11 - 95 Repeat LLR Nomi et al [36 ]1st 200 (10-3000) 210 (40-540) 9.9 4.3 46 93.6 2nd 240 (10-1100) 210 (90-600) 2 0 42.6 97.9 3rd 150 (10-600) 250 (100-515) 0 1.6 30 95 Hallet et al [37 ] - 252.5 (180-322.5) 14.8 3.7 92.6 84.6 van der Poel et al [38 ] 200 (50-600) 193 (120-270) - 11.1 52.4 91.8
Table 4 Postoperative short-term outcomes
Ref. Hospital stay (d) Morbidity (%) Major complications (%) 90-d mortality (%) Time to AC (d) LLR in general Abu Hilal et al [24 ] 4 (1-15) - 11 - - Abu Hilal et al [71 ] 4 (2.5)1 - - - - Allard et al [60 ] 11.4 ± 10 - 17.6 2.3 - Beard et al [43 ] 4 (2-6)1 27.8 14.8 - - Beppu et al [72 ] 12 (3-192) 14.1 - 0 - Castaing et al [32 ] 10 (5-50) 27 - - - Cheung et al [48 ] 4.5 (3-56) 10 5 - - Cipriani et al [29 ] 4 (1-57) 23.3 - 0.8 - de’Angelis et al [44 ] 6 (2-13) 17.3 - 0 - Efanov et al [77 ] - 15 - 0 - Eveno et al [78 ] - - 17.9 - - Fretland et al [12 ] - 19 - - - Fretland et al [9 ] 2.2 (1.9-2.5)2 19 - 0 - Goumard et al [45 ] 4 (1 - 12.5) 26 14 - - Guerron et al [50 ] 3.7 ± 0.5 15 0 - - Inoue et al [80 ] 10.8 ± 11.2 8.7 - - - Karagkounis et al [46 ] 4 (3-5)1 26.2 4.6 - - Kasai et al [82 ] 4 (2-15) 15 - - - Kazaryan et al [26 ] 3 (1-42) - - - - Kubota et al [51 ] 7.3 ± 1.8 2.4 0 - - Langella et al [52 ] 5 (3-13) 13.5 2.7 - - Martínez-Cecilia et al [30 ] 5 (3-33) 22 5 0.4 - Nguyen et al [31 ] 4 (17-22) 12 - - - Nomi et al [27 ] - 41.7 17.5 0.8 - Postriganova et al [28 ] 3 (3-4) 11 7.1 - - Qiu et al [41 ] 7.5 ± 1.5 26.2 - - - Ratti et al [53 ] 3 (4-37) 20.2 6.7 1 - Robles-Campos et al [49 ] 4 (4-5)1 11.5 6.25 - - Shim et al [54 ] 8.5 (5-22) 9.1 0 - - Tabchouri et al [70 ] - - - 0.4 - Tohme et al [55 ] 4 (3-6)1 26 6 - 42 (34-54)1 Topal et al [86 ] 5 (3-7)1 14 - - - Yue et al [39 ] 10 (7-32) 27 6.4 1.3 - Zeng et al [56 ] 10 (8-25) 17.7 2.5 - - Major LLR Abu Hilal et al [24 ] 5 (2-12) - 19 - - Abu Hilal et al [90 ] 5 (3-20) 14 - 0 - Nomi et al [57 ] 10 (5-57) 50.5 23.7 0 - Topal et al [58 ] - 35 - 0 - Minor LLR Abu Hilal et al [24 ] 3 (1-15) - 7 - - Vavra et al [63 ] 8.4 ± 2 4 - - - LLR of posterosuperior segments Okuno et al [42 ] 4 (1-12) 20.7 10.3 0 - Portigliotti et al [92 ] - 35.5 13.5 0 - Efanov et al [94 ] 9 (4-29) - - 0 - Parenchyma sparing LLR Aghayan et al [47 ] 3 (1-35) 14.5 - 0 - Montalti et al [33 ] 6 ± 0.28 20.2 - - - Okumura et al [95 ] 6 (1-45) 11 6.1 0 - Simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection Berti et al [40 ] 8 (4-30) - - - - Dagher et al [61 ] 10.3 ± 9.6 15 4 6 - Ferretti et al [64 ] 8 (3-84) 31 - 2.1 - Jung et al [96 ] 8 (5-23) 17 13 - - Ratti et al [65 ] 9 (4-17) 24 - 0 - Shin et al [34 ] 12 ± 6 20.2 - - - van der Poel et al [97 ] 6 (5-9)1 - 15 - - Xu et al [35 ] 9 (8.25-11.75) 15 - - - Two-stage hepatectomy Okumura et al [59 ] 6 (0-34) 16 8 0 - FSH SSH 9 (4-49) 26 18 3 1.4 mo (0.9-3.5 mo) Repeat LLR Nomi et al [36 ] 7 (2-45) 34.8 16.3 0.7 - 1st 2nd 7 (4-71) 27.7 6.4 0 - 3rd 9 (4-15) 30 10 0 - Hallet et al [37 ] 9 (8-18)1 - - - - van der Poel et al [38 ] 4 (3-7) - 7 0.7 -
Table 5 Long-term and oncologic outcomes
Ref. Recurrence rate (%) 1-yr OS (%) 3-yr OS (%) 5-yr OS (%) 10-yr OS (%) 1-yr DFS (%) 3-yr DFS (%) 5-yr DFS (%) 1-yr RFS (%) 3-yr RFS (%) 5-yr RFS (%) LLR in general Abu Hilal et al [71 ] 16 (after median FU of 22 mo) - - - - - - - - - - Allard et al [60 ] - - 85 70 - - 42 31 - - - Barkhatov et al [25 ] - - - 54 - - - - - - - Beard et al [43 ] - - - 60 - - - 44 - - - Beppu et al [72 ] - 96.3 84.2 70.1 - - - - 70.7 54.5 53.4 Berardi et al [73 ] 56.9 (after median FU of 8.4 mo) 94 74 54 - - - - 66 46 37 Castaing et al [32 ] 57 (after median FU of 30 mo) 97 82 64 - 70 47 35 65 30 30 Cipriani et al [75 ] 57.7 85.9 66.7 - - - - - 54.2 29.4 - Cipriani et al [29 ] - 90.8 76.8 64.3 - 68.5 44.1 35.8 60.5 30.4 23.7 D’Hondt et al [76 ] - - - 65 - - - - - - - de’Angelis et al [44 ] 44.2 (after mean FU of 58.6 ± 44.4 mo) 96.1 80.7 73.1 - 75 28.8 21.1 - - - Eveno et al [78 ] - - 71 70 - - 34 27 - - - Guerron et al [50 ] 35 (after median FU of 16 mo) - - - - - - - - - - Hirokawa et al [79 ] - 100 88 88 - 61 41 41 - - - Iwahashi et al [81 ] - 100 84 42 - 57 14 14 - - - Karagkounis et al [46 ] - - 76 62 - - - - - - - Kasai et al [82 ] - 100 85.4 68 - 55.7 30.4 30.4 - - - Kazaryan et al [26 ] - 84 69 47 - 63 45 42 44 24 24 Kazaryan et al [83 ] - - - 46 - - - - - - - Kubota et al [51 ] - - 88.4 - - - - - - - - Langella et al [52 ] 37.8 (after median FU of 35.7 ± 24.9 mo) - 91.8 - - - 69.1 - - - - Lewin et al [84 ] - - - 54 - - - - - - 36 Martínez-Cecilia et al [30 ] - 93 68 43 - - - - 71 43 31 Nguyen et al [31 ] - 88 69 50 - 65 43 43 - - - Postriganova et al [28 ] - 84 64 49 - 61 45 41 48 35 33 Postriganova et al [28 ] 38.5 - - - - - - - - - - Postriganova et al [28 ] 67.7 (after median FU of 40 mo) 92.5 71.5 49.3 - 72.7 33.5 22.7 - - - Postriganova et al [28 ] - - - - - 68.2 22.7 18.1 - - - Tabchouri et al [70 ] 72 (after median FU of 16 mo) - 82 71 43 - - - - - - Tohme et al [55 ] - - 74.4 51.3 - - - - - - - Vibert et al [87 ] - 97 87 - - 74 51 - - - - Yue et al [39 ] 52.5 (after FU of 31 mo) - - 52 - - - 45 - - - Yun et al [88 ] - - 95 - - - - - - - - Andorra et al [89 ] - - - 43.5 - - - - - - - Major LLR Nomi et al [57 ] 67.7 (after median FU of 39 mo) - - - - - - - - - - Topal et al [58 ] - 90 - 48 - 60 - 43 - - - Minor LLR Vavra et al [63 ] - - - 82.1 - - - 63.2 - - - LLR of posterosuperior segments Montalti et al [91 ] - 96.4 70.8 62.9 - - - - 63.7 37.1 32.5 Okuno et al [42 ] - 100 - - - - - - 49.9 - - Scuderi et al [93 ] - - - - - - - - - 36 - Efanov et al [94 ] - - - 60 - - - - - - - Parenchyma sparing LLR Aghayan et al [47 ] 64 (after median FU of 6 mo) - 68 48 - - - - - 36 34 Montalti et al [33 ] 57.9 (after mean follow-up of 30.9 mo ± 1.71) 98 75 59 - - - - 64.2 35.2 31 Okumura et al [95 ] 59.8 (after median FU of 33.9 mo) - 85.1 - - - - - - 28.8 - Martínez-Cecilia et al [62 ] - 94 82 65 - - - - 82 71 54 Simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection Berti et al [40 ] 60 (after median FU of 19 mo) - - - - - - - - - - Dagher et al [61 ] 28 (after median FU of 26 mo) 97 78 - - 79 64 - - - - Ferretti et al [64 ] 28.2 (after median FU of 29 mo) 98.8 82.1 71.9 - 85.6 65.9 63 - - - Ratti et al [65 ] 36 (after mean FU of 37 mo) - - - - - - - - - - Shin et al [34 ] - - 74.4 - - - 58.5 - - 59.6 - Xu et al [35 ] - - 51.3 - - - 31.6 - - - - Two-stage hepatectomy Okumura et al [59 ] - - 80 - - - - - - - - Repeat LLR Nomi et al [36 ] 77.8 (after a median FU of 43 mo) - - 43.2 - - - - - - - Hallet et al [37 ] 66.7 (after a median FU of 20.7 mo) - - - - - - - - - 21.4
Table 6 General conclusions about laparoscopic liver resections
Ref. Safe Feasible Effective Oncological efficiency Short-term advantages LLR in general Abu Hilal et al [71 ] Yes - Yes - - Allard et al [60 ] - - - Yes Yes Beppu et al [72 ] - - - Yes Yes Castaing et al [32 ] - - - Yes - Cheung et al [48 ] Yes - Yes Yes Yes Cipriani et al [75 ] Yes - - Yes Yes Cipriani et al [29 ] - - - Yes Yes D’Hondt et al [76 ] - - - Yes - de’Angelis et al [44 ] - - - Yes Yes Eveno et al [78 ] - - - Yes Yes Fretland et al [12 ] - - - Yes - Guerron et al [50 ] - - - Yes Yes Inoue et al [80 ] Yes - - - Yes Iwahashi et al [81 ] Yes Yes - Yes - Karagkounis et al [46 ] - - - Yes Yes Kazaryan et al [83 ] Yes - - Yes - Kubota et al [51 ] - - Yes Yes - Langella et al [52 ] Yes - - Yes - Lewin et al [84 ] - - - Yes - Martínez-Cecilia et al [30 ] - - - Yes Yes Nguyen et al [31 ] Yes Yes - Yes - Nomi et al [27 ] Yes - - Yes - Qiu et al [41 ] Yes Yes - - Yes Ratti et al [53 ] - Yes Yes Yes Yes Robles-Campos et al [49 ] - - - Yes Yes Tabchouri et al [70 ] - - - Yes - Tohme et al [55 ] - - - - Yes Topal et al [86 ] - - - Yes Yes Yue et al [39 ] - - - Yes - Yun et al [88 ] - Yes - - - Zeng et al [56 ] Yes Yes - Yes - Major LLR Abu Hilal et al [90 ] Yes - Yes Yes - Nomi et al [57 ] Yes - - - - Topal et al [58 ] - Yes - Yes - Minor LLR Vavra et al [63 ] - - Yes Yes - LLR of posterosuperior segments Okuno et al [42 ] - - - - Yes Portigliotti et al [92 ] - - - - Yes Parenchyma sparing LLR Aghayan et al [47 ] Yes - - Yes - Montalti et al [33 ] - - - Yes - Okumura et al [95 ] - - - Yes Yes Simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection Berti et al [40 ] - Yes Yes - - Dagher et al [61 ] - - - Yes - Ferretti et al [64 ] Yes Yes - Yes - Jung et al [96 ] - Yes - - Yes Ratti et al [65 ] - Yes - Yes Yes Shin et al [34 ] - - - Yes Yes van der Poel et al [97 ] Yes - - - - Xu et al [35 ] Yes Yes Yes - Yes Two-stage hepatectomy Okumura et al [59 ] Yes Yes - Yes - Repeat LLR Nomi et al [36 ] Yes Yes - - - Hallet et al [37 ] Yes Yes - - - van der Poel et al [38 ] - Yes - - Yes
Table 7 Prognostic factors for survival in liver resection for colorectal liver metastases
Ref. Prognostic factor Affected outcome + influence HR (95%CI) P valueLangella et al [52 ] Postoperative complications Worse 3-yr OS 3.804 (1.336-10.832) 0.012 Multiple metastases 3.421 (1.317-8.890) 0.012 Nomi et al [27 ] Synchronous CRLM Worse OS 1.482 (0.621-2.859) 0.023 Positive surgical margin 2.342 (1.356-2.912) 0.012 Node-positive primary tumor No difference in OS 1.857 (0.712-3.459) 0.382 Bilobar metastases 1.398 (0.728-2.458) 0.298 CRLM ≥ 5 cm 6.813 (2.348-4.245) 0.351 Postriganova et al [28 ] Resection margin width (< 1 mm, 1-< 3 mm, 3-< 10 mm and ≥ 10 mm) No difference in length of survival - 0.988 No difference in DFS - 0.978 No difference in RFS - 0.913 Tabchouri et al [70 ] Node-positive primary tumor Increased risk of recurrence 1.611 (1.14-2.28) 0.007 Extrahepatic disease before hepatectomy 1.745 (1.24-2.45) 0.001 R1 resection 1.648 (1.08-2.52) 0.021 Age > 70 yr Worse survival 3.157 (1.10-3.10) 0.021 Recurrence 4.637 (1.60-6.26) 0.002 Tohme et al [55 ] MILS (vs OLR) Timely initiation of AC 2.23 (1.16-4.31) 0.017 OLR with postoperative complications (vs MILS without complications) 0.45 (0.23-0.86) 0.017 Number of lesions (solitary vs multiple) 1.71 (1.14-2.54) 0.009 Length of stay (> 4 vs ≤ 4 d) 0.64 (0.41-0.99) 0.043 AC more than 60 d after surgery Worse RFS 0.05 Worse OS 0.06 Topal et al [86 ] Fong’s CRS Worse DFS 1.46 (1.19-1.78) 0.0002 Preoperative systemic chemotherapy 1.70 (1.15-2.52) 0.008 Male sex Worse OS 2.54 (1.45-4.45) 0.001 Interval systemic chemotherapy and surgery for CRLM 1.06 (1.01-1.10) 0.012 Fong’s CRS 1.49 (1.16-1.91) 0.002 Yue et al [39 ] TNM stage of primary tumor (III vs I-II) Worse OS 1.981 (1.258-3.854) 0.021 Disease-free interval (< 12 vs ≥ 12 mo) 1.610 (1.378-2.873) 0.015 Number of metastases (≥3 vs < 3) 1.500 (1.258-1.870) 0.041 Disease-free interval (< 12 vs ≥ 12 mo) Worse DFS 1.874 (1.215-2.001) 0.036 Preoperative CEA levels (≥ 5 vs < 5 ng/mL) 1.740 (1.418-2.108) 0.028 Zeng et al [56 ] Disease-free interval (< 36 vs ≥ 36 mo) 5-yr OS 2.9871 (2.012-6.980) 0.009 Disease-free interval (< 36 vs ≥ 36 mo) 5-yr DFS 2.9501 (1.895-3.562) 0.010 Montalti et al [33 ] Lesions located in posterosuperior segments Worse tumor recurrence 2.4 (1.24-4.61) 0.009 Blood loss (≥ 1000 mL vs < 1000 mL) 3.2 (1.23-7.99) 0.012 R1 margins No difference in OS 1.06 (0.57-3.80) 0.37 CEA levels (≥ 10 µg/L vs < 10 µg/L) Worse OS 4.2 (2.02-16.9) 0.001 Multiple lesions (>2 vs ≤2 lesions) Increased risk of R1 margins 9.32 (1.14-32.5) 0.037 Cervantes et al [98 ] CRLM minimum size <9 mm Worse RFS 1.6 (1.1-2.4) < 0.05 Worse hepatic RFS 1.8 (1.2-3.0) < 0.05 De Haas et al [99 ] Development of adrenal metastases after LR Worse survival - 0.020 Jones et al [100 ] SUVmean during PET-CT Insignificant negative effect on OS 1.053 (0.839-1.321) 0.659 Log(volume of tumor) Insignificant negative effect on OS 1.699 (0.964-2.993) 0.067 Ratti et al [101 ] Right colonic neoplasms Worse RFS 2.382 (1.46-2.75) 0.042 T-stage of primary tumor (T3-T4) 1.962 (1.55-3.01) 0.044 RAS mutation 2.122 (1.33-2.96) 0.039 CRS > 3 2.572 (1.68-3.65) 0.029 Absence of perioperative chemotherapy 2.312 (1.39-3.21) 0.039 Right colonic neoplasms Worse OS 2.412 (1.39-2.81) 0.046 T-stage of primary tumor (T3-T4) 1.862 (1.43-2.78) 0.048 RAS mutation 2.222 (1.42-3.07) 0.037 CRS > 3 2.752 (1.83-3.62) 0.032 Absence of perioperative chemotherapy 2.162 (1.40-3.06) 0.042 Nierop et al [102 ] Non-dHGP Higher risk of positive resection margins 1.7871 (1.112-2.871) 0.016 Number of CRLM 1.1531 (1.077-1.234) < 0.001 Non-dHGP Worse OS 1.57 (1.26-1.95) < 0.001 Positive resection margins 1.41(1.13-1.76) 0.002 Age at resection 1.016 (1.008-1.023) < 0.001 Node positive primary 1.455 (1.226-1.728) < 0.001 Number of CRLM 1.078 (1.039-1.118) < 0.001 Size of CRLM 1.063 (1.035-1.091) < 0.001 Preoperative CEA No difference in OS 1.000 (1.000-1.000) 0.898