Explore the vast range of titles available.

The aim of this study was to assess primary tumor sidedness of colorectal cancer (CRC), rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (RAS) and v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutations and microsatellite instability (MSI) status as prognostic factors predicting complications, survival outcomes, and local tumor progression (LTP) following surgery and thermal ablation in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) based study included 520 patients, 774 procedures, and 2101 tumors undergoing local treatment (resection and/or thermal ablation) from 2000 to 2021. Outcomes following local treatment were analyzed for primary tumor sidedness of CRC, RAS, and BRAF mutations and MSI status. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), local control (LC), distant progression-free survival (DPFS), and overall survival (OS). Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed based on Cox proportional hazards model. The chi-square test was used to analyze complications. Complications (p = 0.485), OS (p = 0.252), LTPFS (p = 0.939), and LC (p = 0.423) was not associated with tumor-sidedness. Compared to right-sided colon cancer (CC) (reference HR 1.000), DPFS was superior for left-sided CC and rectal cancer (p = 0.018) with an HR for left-sided CC of 0.742 (95% CI, 0.596–0.923) and for RC of 0.760 (95% CI, 0.597–0.966). Regarding RAS mutations, no significant difference was found in OS (p = 0.116). DPFS (p = 0.001), LTPFS (p = 0.039), and LC (p = 0.025) were significantly lower in the RAS mutation group. Though no difference in LTPFS was found between RAS wildtype and RAS mutated CRLM following resection (p = 0.532), LTPFS was worse for RAS mutated tumors compared to RAS wildtype following thermal ablation (p = 0.037). OS was significantly lower in the BRAF mutation group (p < 0.001) and in the MSI group (p < 0.001) following local treatment, while both did not affect DPFS, LTPFS, and LC. This AmCORE based study suggests the necessity of wider margins to reduce LTP rates in patients with RAS mutated CRLM, especially for thermal ablation. Upfront knowledge regarding molecular biomarkers may contribute to improved oncological outcomes.

PurposeTo assess safety and outcome of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as compared to systemic chemotherapy and partial hepatectomy (PH) in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).MethodsMEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies with multivariate analysis and/or matching were included. Guidelines from National Guideline Clearinghouse and Guidelines International Network were assessed using the AGREE II instrument.ResultsThe search revealed 3530 records; 328 were selected for full-text review; 48 were included: 8 systematic reviews, 2 randomized studies, 26 comparative observational studies, 2 guideline-articles and 10 case series; in addition 13 guidelines were evaluated. Literature to assess the effectiveness of ablation was limited. RFA + systemic chemotherapy was superior to chemotherapy alone. PH was superior to RFA alone but not to RFA + PH or to MWA. Compared to PH, RFA showed fewer complications, MWA did not. Outcomes were subject to residual confounding since ablation was only employed for unresectable disease.ConclusionThe results from the EORTC-CLOCC trial, the comparable survival for ablation + PH versus PH alone, the potential to induce long-term disease control and the low complication rate argue in favour of ablation over chemotherapy alone. Further randomized comparisons of ablation to current-day chemotherapy alone should therefore be considered unethical. Hence, the highest achievable level of evidence for unresectable CRLM seems reached. The apparent selection bias from previous studies and the superior safety profile mandate the setup of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to surgery.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive disease with high mortality. The vast majority of patients present with unresectable, advanced stage disease, for whom standard of care chemo(radio)therapy may improve survival by several months. Immunotherapy has led to a fundamental shift in the treatment of several advanced cancers. However, its efficacy in PDAC in terms of clinical benefit is limited, possibly owing to the immunosuppressive, inaccessible tumor microenvironment. Still, various immunotherapies have demonstrated the capacity to initiate local and systemic immune responses, suggesting an immune potentiating effect. In this review, we address PDAC’s immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and immune evasion methods and discuss a wide range of immunotherapies, including immunomodulators (i.e., immune checkpoint inhibitors, immune stimulatory agonists, cytokines and adjuvants), oncolytic viruses, adoptive cell therapies (i.e., T cells and natural killer cells) and cancer vaccines. We provide a general introduction to their working mechanism as well as evidence of their clinical efficacy and immune potentiating abilities in PDAC. The key to successful implementation of immunotherapy in this disease may rely on exploitation of synergistic effects between treatment combinations. Accordingly, future treatment approaches should aim to incorporate diverse and novel immunotherapeutic strategies coupled with cytotoxic drugs and/or local ablative treatment, targeting a wide array of tumor-induced immune escape mechanisms.

Abstract Purpose of ReviewBased on good local control rates and an excellent safety profile, guidelines consider thermal ablation the gold standard to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). However, efficacy decreases exponentially with increasing tumour size. The preferred treatment for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare safety and efficacy of local ablative treatments for unresectable intermediate-size CRLM (3–5 cm).Recent FindingsWe systematically searched for publications reporting treatment outcomes of unresectable intermediate-size CRLM treated with thermal ablation, irreversible electroporation (IRE) or stereotactic ablative body-radiotherapy (SABR). No comparative studies or randomized trials were found. Literature to assess effectiveness was limited and there was substantial heterogeneity in outcomes and study populations. Per-patient local control ranged 22–90% for all techniques; 22–89% (8 series) for thermal ablation, 44% (1 series) for IRE, and 67–90% (1 series) for SABR depending on radiation dose.SummaryFocal ablative therapy is safe and can induce long-term disease control, even for intermediate-size CRLM. Although SABR and tumuor-bracketing techniques such as IRE are suggested to be less susceptible to size, evidence to support any claims of superiority of one technique over the other is unsubstantiated by the available evidence. Future prospective comparative studies should address local-tumour-progression-free-survival, local control rate, overall survival, adverse events, and quality-of-life.

BackgroundTo analyze long-term oncological outcomes of open and percutaneous thermal ablation in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).MethodsThis assessment from a prospective, longitudinal tumor registry included 329 patients who underwent 541 procedures for 1350 CRLM from January 2010 to February 2021. Three cohorts were formed: 2010–2013 (129 procedures [53 percutaneous]), 2014–2017 (206 procedures [121 percutaneous]) and 2018–2021 (206 procedures [135 percutaneous]). Local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and overall survival (OS) data were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Potential confounding factors were analyzed with uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses.ResultsLTPFS improved significantly over time for percutaneous ablations (2-year LTPFS 37.7% vs. 69.0% vs. 86.3%, respectively, P < .0001), while LTPFS for open ablations remained reasonably stable (2-year LTPFS 87.1% [2010–2013], vs. 92.7% [2014–2017] vs. 90.2% [2018–2021], P = .12). In the latter cohort (2018–2021), the open approach was no longer superior regarding LTPFS (P = .125). No differences between the three cohorts were found regarding OS (P = .088), length of hospital stay (open approach, P = .065; percutaneous approach, P = .054), and rate and severity of complications (P = .404). The rate and severity of complications favored the percutaneous approach in all three cohorts (P = .002).ConclusionOver the last 10 years efficacy of percutaneous ablations has improved remarkably for the treatment of CRLM. Oncological outcomes seem to have reached results following open ablation. Given its minimal invasive character and shorter length of hospital stay, whenever feasible, percutaneous procedures may be favored over an open approach.

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a ‘toolbox’ of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.

PurposeThis study assessed the diagnostic value of CT hepatic arteriography (CTHA) for the intraprocedural detection of previously unknown colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and the impact on the definitive treatment plan.Materials and MethodsAll patients treated with CTHA-guided percutaneous ablation for CRLM between January 2012 and March 2022 were identified from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE). Radiology reports of the ablative procedure and follow-up imaging were reviewed to see if (a) previously unknown CRLM were detected intra-procedurally and if (b) new CRLM, potentially missed on CTHA, appeared within 6 months following the procedure; three abdominal radiologists re-reviewed the baseline CTHA scans of these patients with early recurrence. To ratify immediate ablations of concomitantly detected CRLM, the upper limit of false positives was predefined at 10%.ResultsOne hundred and fifty-two patients were included. With CTHA, a total of 17 additional tumours in 15 patients were diagnosed and treated immediately, two representing disappeared tumours following systemic chemotherapy. Compared to the conventional contrast-enhanced (ce)CT, ceMRI and 18F-FDG PET-CT, adding CTHA was superior for the detection of CRLM (P < .001). Within 12 months of follow-up 121, new CRLM appeared in 49/152 patients (32.2%); retrospective blinded assessment revealed 56 to already be visible on the baseline CTHA scan (46%); four lesions without substrate on follow-up scans were considered false positives (n = 4/60; 7%). Arterial ring enhancement was the most frequently reported imaging characteristic (n = 45/60; 75%).ConclusionThe subsequent use of CTHA has added value for the detection of previously unknown and vanished CRLM. Taking into account the low number of false positives (7%) and the favourable safety profile of percutaneous ablation, we believe that immediate ablation of typical ring-enhancing supplementary tumours is justified and sufficiently validated.Level of EvidenceLevel 3; individual cross-sectional study with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

PurposeThe objective of the COLLISION RELAPSE trial is to prove or disprove superiority of neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by repeat local treatment (either thermal ablation and/or surgical resection), compared to repeat local treatment alone, in patients with at least one recurrent locally treatable CRLM within one year and no extrahepatic disease.MethodsA total of 360 patients will be included in this phase III, multicentre randomized controlled trial. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are distant progression-free survival, local tumour progression-free survival analysed per patient and per tumour, systemic therapy-related toxicity, procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, pain assessment and quality of life, cost-effectiveness ratio and quality-adjusted life years.DiscussionIf the addition of neoadjuvant systemic therapy to repeat local treatment of CRLM proves to be superior compared to repeat local treatment alone, this may lead to a prolonged life expectancy and increased disease-free survival at the cost of possible systemic therapy-related side effects.Level of EvidenceLevel 1, phase III randomized controlled trial.Trial RegistrationNCT05861505. May 17, 2023.

Purpose: Thermal ablation is widely recognized as the standard of care for small-size unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). For larger CRLM safety, local control and overall efficacy are not well established and insufficiently validated. The purpose of this comparative series was to analyze outcomes for intermediate-size versus small-size CRLM. Material and methods: Patients treated with thermal ablation between December 2000 and November 2021 for small-size and intermediate-size CRLM were included. The primary endpoints were complication rate and local control (LC). Secondary endpoints included local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: In total, 59 patients were included in the intermediate-size (3–5 cm) group and 221 in the small-size (0–3 cm) group. Complications were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.546). No significant difference between the groups was found in an overall comparison of OS (HR 1.339; 95% CI 0.824–2.176; p = 0.239). LTPFS (HR 3.388; p < 0.001) and LC (HR 3.744; p = 0.004) were superior in the small-size group. Nevertheless, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year LC for intermediate-size CRLM was still 93.9%, 85.4%, and 81.5%, and technical efficacy improved over time. Conclusions: Thermal ablation for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM is safe and induces long-term LC in the vast majority. The results of the COLLISION-XL trial (unresectable colorectal liver metastases: stereotactic body radiotherapy versus microwave ablation—a phase II randomized controlled trial for CRLM 3–5 cm) are required to provide further clarification of the role of local ablative methods for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM.

The aim of this study was to assess safety, efficacy and survival outcomes of repeat thermal ablation as compared to repeat partial hepatectomy in patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) based study of two cohorts, repeat thermal ablation versus repeat partial hepatectomy, analyzed 136 patients (100 thermal ablation, 36 partial hepatectomy) and 224 tumors (170 thermal ablation, 54 partial hepatectomy) with recurrent CRLM from May 2002 to December 2020. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), distant progression-free survival (DPFS) and local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and complications, analyzed using the chi-square test. Multivariable analyses based on Cox proportional hazards model were used to account for potential confounders. In addition, subgroup analyses according to patient, initial and repeat local treatment characteristics were performed. In the crude overall comparison, OS of patients treated with repeat partial hepatectomy was not statistically different from repeat thermal ablation (p = 0.927). Further quantification of OS, after accounting for potential confounders, demonstrated concordant results for repeat local treatment (hazard ratio (HR), 0.986; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.517–1.881; p = 0.966). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS were 98.9%, 62.6% and 42.3% respectively for the thermal ablation group and 93.8%, 74.5% and 49.3% for the repeat resection group. No differences in DPFS (p = 0.942), LTPFS (p = 0.397) and complication rate (p = 0.063) were found. Mean length of hospital stay was 2.1 days in the repeat thermal ablation group and 4.8 days in the repeat partial hepatectomy group (p = 0.009). Subgroup analyses identified no heterogeneous treatment effects according to patient, initial and repeat local treatment characteristics. Repeat partial hepatectomy was not statistically different from repeat thermal ablation with regard to OS, DPFS, LTPFS and complications, whereas length of hospital stay favored repeat thermal ablation. Thermal ablation should be considered a valid and potentially less invasive alternative for small-size (0–3 cm) CRLM in the treatment of recurrent new CRLM. While, the eagerly awaited results of the phase III prospective randomized controlled COLLISION trial (NCT03088150) should provide definitive answers regarding surgery versus thermal ablation for CRLM.