Retrospective analysis reveals that anatomic resection reduces local margin recurrence in lung metastases, suggesting improved surgery outcomes.
Background/Objectives: Patients with single metastases from colorectal cancer constitute a subgroup with an excellent 5-year OS of 55–70% and with a real chance for cure. In this situation, local margin recurrence in the lung may impair the prognosis and thus is the main outcome target of surgery. Methods: A retrospective multicenter analysis of patients with single metastases from colorectal cancers was performed. Four German Thoracic Surgery units contributed data from their prospective metastasectomy databases. Statistical analysis was focused on tumor recurrence and risk factors for local margin recurrence. Results: 166 patients from four centers could be further analyzed. For later comparison, 93 (56%) anatomic resections and 73 (44%) non-anatomic resections were pooled. Tumor recurrence was detected: at any site 87/161 (54%), within the lung 62/161 (38.5%) at intrapulmonary margins 25/145 (17.2%) and in intrathoracic lymph nodes 14/138 (10.1%). Intrapulmonary local margin recurrence was more often found in non-anatomic (25.4%) versus anatomic (11.6%) resections (p = 0.052). After propensity score matching (PSM), local margin recurrence was significantly more frequent after non-anatomic resection of intermediate and peripherally located metastases (p = 0.042). Furthermore, local margin recurrence was associated with small safety margins (p < 0.001), small number of lymph nodes removed (p < 0.001) and with intrathoracic lymph node recurrence (p = 0.001). The 5- and 10-year OS of the whole group was 70% and 47% with a median survival of 9.0 years. The 5- and 10-year RFS of the whole group was 59% and 43% with a median of 7.3 years. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that anatomical resection of single CRC lung metastases is superior to non-anatomic resection with respect to local radicality and local intrapulmonary margin recurrence, but there was no difference in OS and RFS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Welter et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: