Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis – State of the Art and Future Perspectives

Altmetrics

Downloads

164

Views

37

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

08 November 2023

Posted:

08 November 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The current management of colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRCLM) patients involves a multidisciplinary approach with surgical resection remaining the primary curative option. The advances in liver surgery have improved outcomes, enabling more patients to undergo surgery successfully. In addition, the development of imaging software has improved the preoperative planning and patient selection for surgery and other interventions. Systemic therapies, such as targeted therapies and immunotherapies have enhanced the chances of complete resection. Targeted agents in combination with chemotherapy, have shown efficacy in downstaging tumors and increasing resectability.
Keywords: 
Subject: Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Oncology and Oncogenics

1. Overview of colorectal cancer

The high incidence and prevalence rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) translate into a elevated health care burden making this issue and the research around it highly important.
Currently, CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death in the world, with a lifetime risk of approximately 2-5%[1,2,3,4]
In 2020, CRC accounted for 10% of the total cancer diagnoses, with 1 931 590 new cases, and 9.4% of total cancer deaths with 935 173 deaths.
In the same year, the incidence rates were of 52.3%, 26.9% and 9.3% in Asia, Europe and North America respectively.[5]
In the past 20 years, the CRC incidence in older populations has decreased with a corresponding mortality reduction, however the incidence among adults younger than 50 years, continues to increase and the CRC global burden has been predicted to increase by 60% with expected more than 1.1 million deaths and 2.2 million novel cases by 2030.[6,7]
Therefore, it is important to optimize CRC approach and the most cost-effective one is the prevention.
The prevention can be optimized by avoiding the modifiable risk factors and by effective and periodic screening tests.
More than half of all CRC are attributable to modifiable lifestyle factors.
The unhealthy diet appears to be associated with higher risk of CRC. A metanalysis of prospective observational studies highlighted the association between higher CRC risk and low intakes of calcium, yogurt, dietary fiber and higher consumption of red meat.[8] The anthropometric characteristics appears to have some impact in CRC risk, in one way associated to the lifestyle that conduct to a higher body weight, fat mass and body mass index but also due to a pro-inflammatory state present in obese people [9].
Tobacco smoking has consequences in the oxidative stress pathway with consequent damage in cellular DNA, promoting cancer[10]
Another clear and modifiable risk factor is alcohol consumption. Several studies confirm that more than 1 alcoholic beverage per day has a relationship with the development of colon polyps and CRC[8]
There are some drugs associated to prevention. Aspirin and non-steroidal anti- inflammatory appears to be associated to with the decreased incidence of colorectal cancer. In fact, a study published in 2020 with a more than 90 000 patients sample, proved that those who started use aspirin on daily basis before the 70 years had a decreased risk of CRC [11]. Multiple studies also mentioned this association and a recent Clinical Practice Update from the American Gastroenterological Association recommended use of aspirin for prevention of CRC in specific cohorts based on their age and cardiovascular risk profile [11,12,13]
According to population-attributable fraction, about 50% of CRC cases in the United States and the United Kingdom were estimated to be attributable to the aforementioned modifiable risk factors.
In respect of nonmodifiable risk factors, the best way to approach is through an attempted screening.
The gender, race and ethnicity are some of those. Although the lifetime incidence between men and woman’s is approximately equal, the prevalence of preneoplastic lesions is higher in men with a 1.77 times more risk of adenomas on screening colonoscopy’s[14,15] Racial and ethnic differences are difficult to study due to group heterogeneity and the inherent factors associated to like disentangle lifestyle factors and genetics.
The genetic is the well-known nonmodifiable risk factors. About 20-30% of CRC patients have family history of CRC and only 5% are understood by Mendelian inheritance. [16]
The hereditary polyposis syndromes Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), serrated polyposis syndrome, MYH-associated polyposis (MAP), polymerase proofreading associated polyposis (PPAP), juvenile polyposis syndrome, and Peutz- Jeghers syndrome. [31]. Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer Syndrome (HNPCC) or Lynch syndrome, is associated with an increased risk of malignancy that can occur with or without precursor polyps.[32]

2. CRC Liver metastasis

The major causes of CRC fatality are the metastatic process associated to the disease, being the liver the most common metastatic site (accounting for 70% of all CRC patients with metastatic cancer) and reported as the leading cause of death in CRC patients.
As we know, 20-25% of CRC cases have LM at the time of diagnostic and about 50% and 10-15% of CRC patients will develop LM and lung metastasis during the course of the disease. [7]
These metastatic state decreases the overall 5-year survival rate to 4- 20%. [17,18]
Even in the case of radical liver resection, approximately 30-50% of the patients will recurred and more than 50% of them will die due to disease progression.[7]
The target therapy and immunotherapy as well as the improvement of surgical procedures and the availability of different local ablative treatment, have already changed the approach algorithm of these patients and increased the overall survival rates which is now about 30 months; however local or systemic recurrence of CRC still remains a problem [19]
The underlying mechanisms of CRC metastasis have not been yet fully understood and that is the focus of every CRC researcher as the molecular mechanism of CRC metastasis will determine the development of novel therapies against it and improve metastatic patients’ survival.
One of the reasons why the metastatic process is so difficult to have full knowledge is due to the complex interaction involved in the process making it difficult to reproduce. The cancer and its metastatic process not only depends on tumor biology itself but it is also a result of the tumor and host interaction, resulting in a unique microenvironment in the primary tumor location as well as in the metastatic site.
In addition, the previously accepted progression sequence of the tumors, in which primary tumors first seeds lymph node metastasis and then further seed distant metastases is no longer a reality. The distant metastasis and the lymph nodes ones appears to have independent origins [20].
The intratumor heterogeneities and the relationships among CRC different omics have not been fully integrated as we can already determine the point of mutation in a certain patient trough a genome sequency analysis, however, most of the times we cannot know the phenotypic and transcriptomic consequences. The RNA sequencing allows us to compare the gene expression differences between the primary and the metastatic tumor but this transcriptomic result may just be a reflection of other factors during the metastatic process.

3. CRCLM – Information of the primary tumor

We all know the prognostic information that the Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TMN) staging system give us. Besides that, there are other important information’s that we need to consider when approaching these patients:
  • Tumor location: Right sided primary colon tumors have worse survival rates and present more often RAS, BRAF and PIK3CA gene mutation [21]. The left sided tumors are characterized by chromosomal instability and activation of epithelial grown factor receptor pathway [22]
  • Histology: the different histological subtypes of CRC are associated a different tumor aggressiveness and its tendency to metastasize: The mucinous carcinoma, present in 10% of the cases, as well as, signet-ring cell carcinomas, present in 1% of it, have a high incidence of deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), which are associated to microsatellite instability (MSI) and BRAF mutations and these genetic status are recognized to have poor prognosis in stage IV CRC and so the histological subtype may be used as a prognostic factor without the need for genetic analysis[23,24].
  • Grading: Histologic grade is a subjective analysis that reflects the degree of tumor differentiation and is a feature that has consistently been demonstrated to be a stage-independent prognostic factor. All 3 guidelines (American Society of Clinical Oncology -ASCO; National Comprehensive Cancer Network- NCCN and European Society for Medical Oncology - ESMO) consider that poorly differentiated histology represents an adverse feature and are more likely to grow and spread quickly, increasing the risk of metastasis.[25,26]
  • MMR status: Mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes occur in 15to 20% of sporadic colon cancer and in hereditary nonpolyposis CRC.[27] Tumors that are MMR deficient (microsatellite unstable [MSI-H]) are associated with longer survival despite being often poorly differentiated [28,29,30] Besides the better prognosis of MMR deficiency tumors, the adjuvant FU based chemotherapy (ChT) is less beneficial in these patients
  • The lymph vascular invasion is an important and independent adverse prognostic factor [31,32,33,34] It is one of the clinicopathologic factors that is included in the definition of “high-risk” stage II colon cancer from ASCO, NCCN and ESMO and its presence influences the use of adjuvant treatment. The perineural invasion is another clinicopathologic factor included in the definition of "high-risk" stage II by ASCO, NCCN and ESMO as their presence is associated with poor prognosis.
  • Tumor budding is defined as single cells or clusters of up to four cells at the invasive margin of colorectal cancer[35] High levels of tumor budding are associated with an increased risk of metastasis. [36,37]

4. CRCLM – the role of imaging

The radiological assessment of liver metastasis gives us several important pieces of information that can goes beyond staging. Its use has gain recent interest as a possible tool to improve the tailored approach.
The definition of resectable CRC liver metastases is simple: tumor that can be resected completely leaving an adequate liver remnant.[38] To select a patient to resection most surgeons require no radiographic evidence of the hepatic artery, major bile ducts, main portal vein or celiac/paraaortic lymph nodes and an adequate predicted remaining functional liver. To decide what surgical technique to choose, there are other important information.
Contrast-enhanced preoperative liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the preferred first-line imaging study for evaluating CRC liver metastasis as it identifies more hepatic lesions that are visualized by computer tomography, especially in the presence of background fatty liver change.
The number, size and lobar distribution has been the focus of attention and multiple studies have reported cutoffs to select patients to surgical resection. The previous rule that patients with more than three lesions, bilobar distribution and the patients where it is not possible to achieve a 1cm margins should not be considered for surgery is no longer valid. The studies referent to number, size and lobar distribution are addressed further in this article.
Modern multidisciplinary consensus defines resectable CRC liver metastasis if R0 resection can be achieved while leaving a functional residual liver volume. The American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology in 2006, state that the feasibility of hepatic resection should be based on three criteria: (1) the ability to preserve two contiguous hepatic segments; (2) preservation of adequate vascular inflow and outflow as well as biliary drainage; (3) the ability to preserve adequate future liver remnant (FLR)(>20 % in a healthy liver; >30 % after chemotherapy/or in liver steatosis).[39]
Another important utility of liver images is to evaluate the treatment response to chemotherapy. For patient with resectable liver metastasis, particularly for the synchronous lesions, is initial chemotherapy followed by reevaluation. The standard response evaluation classification is based in the RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria what may not be applicable to biologic agents such as bevacizumab. This classification predicts pathologic response and therefore, is also a prognostic tool
The radiomics is defined by the analysis of grey patterns of radiologic images to derive clinical and pathological information[40] It is an area of increase interest given the association of images to tumor biology and the fact that images are already part of the routine of oncologic patients. It has been studied in MRI, CT scan and PET-CT images and may help to stratify the risk of recurrence, to predict response to systemic treatment as well as to predict Overall Survival (OS). [41,42] Radiogenomics is another associated concept that defines the possibility of predict the gene expression or polymorphisms trough radiomics features[43] Some studies are difficult to interpreted given the fact that they included both chemo-naïve and pre-treated patients and the lack of standardization of the analytical techniques. Neverthless, it is definitely a promising prognostic tool in the era of computational analysis.

5. Serum markers/liquid biopsy

There are some substances found in the blood that can provide valuable information about the presence and progression of liver metastasis these markers play an important role in prognostic and monitoring of CRC with liver metastases. The Carcinoembrionyonic antigen (CEA) is a widely used serum marker for CRC and other solid tumors. The CEA is being considered a proangiogenic molecule and it is associated to chances in the microenvironment of the sinusoids, promotion the expression of adhesion molecule and malignant cell survival and protects the metastatic cells from death. Elevated CEA levels can indicate the presence of liver metastasis and are an important marker monitoring during the treatment and follow-up of these patients. It is a promising target biomarker for multiple biotechnological applications. [44]
However, the CEA has low sensitivity and the adjunctive monitorization of the Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) may improve its sensitivity. [45]
Although high CA 19-9 levels are known to be associated to poor-prognostic in stage IV CRC patients, routine measurements of ca 19-9 in colon cancer is not recommended by ASCO guidelines due to insufficient evidence.[46]
However, some authors still defend its role in the evaluation of treatment response or even in predicting the response to chemotherapy. A study from Ma et al. reported that CA 19-9 levels were higher in patients with disease that had respond to chemotherapy than in the group of patients that did not respond to the treatment. [47] Zhou et al. did a retrospective study with over 300 patients with stage III CRC who underwent curative resection follow by adjuvant ChT with oxaliplatin and capecitabine, where they determined that high levels of preoperative CA 19-9 indicate a worse prognostic outcome. [48] These patients may benefit from a different and more tighter follow-up protocol to an early determination of recurrence.
Other markers that provide information about liver damage or impairment due to metastatic involvement are the serum markers of liver function, including ALT (alanine aminotransferase)/AST (aspartate aminotransferase) and bilirubin.
The enzyme Lactate Dehydrogenase is a marker of the cancer cells division and tissue damage and it is considered in metastatic CRC patients as a marker of disease activity and response to treatment.
All of the previous mentioned markers are routinely measured in CRC patients there are, however, other informative serum markers that can be present in several other tumors as they traduce cellular proliferation and angiogenesis
The Hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) are some examples of molecules that can be elevated in the serum of CRC with liver metastasis.[49,50]
Another important data that can be found in serum samples are the microRNA profiles. Many researches show that these data play important role in the development and metastasis of various tumors.[51,52,53]
Noncoding RNAs (NcRNAs) are molecular regulators of metastatic development and have been used as biomarkers. The NcRNAs include MicroRNAs (MiRNAs), circular RNAs (CircRNAs) and long non-coding RNA (LncRNAs). The MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are a class of small non-coding RNAs with 22–24 nucleotides in length that affect the gene expression levels via targeting messenger RNA (mRNA)and has gained interest as a potential therapeutic target. [54,55,56,57] Changes in miRNA expression may affect the extent of target regulation and thus influence cell homeostasis an this can be detected in serum samples and are associated with cancer progression.
Its influence on gene expression and its robust presence in bodily tissues and fluids make them an ideal biomarker.
The CircRNAs play important biological roles in cell proliferation, migration and invasion and its high conservation and cytoplasm stability leads to special functions in transcriptional regulation and post-transcription gene expression.[58]
The LncRNAs are untranslated transcripts of more than 200 nucleotides and although they do not have protein-coding function, they are involved in regulating the expression of almost all protein-coding genes in cells.[59]
The NcRNAs are abnormally expressed in metastatic cancer cells and are crucial for colon cancer liver metastasis development.
The analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) originating from primary or secondary tumors and the DNA fragments (Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA)) in the blood can be used for the early detection of invasive cancer (micrometastasis) as well as a prognostic tool to evaluate the response to chemotherapy. [60,61,62]
Isolated ctDNA from plasma carries genetic and epigenetic changes originating from the primary tumor and enables the molecular analysis of mutations but the main challenge of ctDNA analysis is the low concentration compared to the total DNA present in serum.[63] Clinically, it can be used as a biomarker for patient stratification, therapy selection, and real-life information about the effectiveness of the therapy. [64,65,66]
It appears to be possible to detect CTC in 80 to 90% of the patients in the pretreatment window and after surgical or chemotherapy[67]. The retrospective studies have described a concordance over 90% between RAS status in matched tumor and ctDNA samples and that the RAS status of the ctDNA have high specificity (90-100%) but suboptimal sensitivity (89-96%).[65,68] The Unicancer Prodige-14 trial investigated the variation of KRAS mutated ctDNA in 92 patients and showed that the drop of KRAS mutational load after 4 cycles of neoadjuvant ChT was associated to higher rate of R0/R1 resection and the presence of detectable ctDNA before surgery was associated to shorter survival versus undetectable pre surgical ctDNA [69]. Another use of the liquid biopsy is to evaluate the minimal residual disease after resection of CRCLM [70,71].
The liquid biopsy is a minimally invasive technique for detecting molecular biomarkers that uses an analysis of liquid biological material. [72] It has the great advantage of the availability of material for diagnosis however, the lack of adequate and widely available technology and the standardization of the process are needed. There are some available commercial tests based on liquid biopsy and ctDNA analysis: Guardante360; FoundationOne Liquid CDx; Colvera; BEAMing and Signatera. [73,74,75,76]These molecular assays can be useful to determine genomic alterations as for monitoring disease progression, disease recurrence or relapse as well as monitoring the response to immune-check point inhibitor for patients with CRC.[77]
Properly designed prospective trials are eagerly awaited to explore these potential applications so it can be use in clinical practice.

6. Genetic markers

Several genetic markers and mutations have been identified that increase the risk of developing colon cancer. Some of the most well-known genetic markers and mutations associated with colon cancer include:
The KRAS mutation present in 25-52% is associated to an invasive and more aggressive behavior, more likely to right sided primary tumors, higher rate of extrahepatic disease at time of resection and decreased likelihood of achieving major pathologic response. [78] CRC with a KRAS mutation has a disease-free survival (DFS) of 10.8 months and OS of 19.6 -55 months. Some studies suggest that KRAS mutational status may influence the choice of surgical technique because some data suggested that removing major vascular branches that facilitate the tumor cell spread to adjacent liver segments, reduces the risk of liver disease in KRAS mutation tumors that appear to mimic cholangiocarcinoma behavior[72,73] Other studies reported that surgical margins had no impact among patients with KRAS mutated tumors [81] The KRAS status is already defined as part of metastatic CRC approach.
The BRAF is a component of the RAS pathway and is equally associated to a more aggressive biology. Its mutation is more common in female sex and right sided tumors. It is present in 8-12% of CRC patients and in up to 4% of patients undergoing metastasectomy which means that it is present more frequently in unresectable disease or multiorgan involvement [82] Its negative prognostic impact is even more pronounced that the weight of RAS mutation and the liver resection was discourage for many years in this subgroup.[83,84] However more recent studies favors the use of preoperative ChT in these patients [85]
The TP53 tumor suppressor gene mutations are associated with an increased risk of CRC and when present are linked to a more aggressive disease and high risk of metastasis. It is reported in 50-75% of CRC cases. [86]
The HER2 (Human epidermal receptor growth factor 2) amplification is present in about 2-3% of mCRC patients and characterized a subgroup of patients with worse prognosis and resistance to anti-EGFR therapies. [87,88]. Raghav et al. even suggested that RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC patients should be screened for HER2 amplification before anti-EGFRab treatment.[89] The results of DESTINY-CRC01 multicenter non-RCT trial demonstrated the safety of Transtuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd, an antibody–drug conjugate of a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase I inhibitor) in HER2+ mCRC patients and 2 years latter Yoshino et al. reported an OS benefit of 5 months longer in patients HER2+ mCRC treated with T-DXd. [90,91]
The DESTINY-CRC02 trial, addressed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 different T-Dxd doses in HER2+ mCRC, showed anti-tumor efficacy irrespective of RAS status and in those with prior anti-HER2 therapy.[92]
The SMAD (Small mothers against decapentaplegic)4 is a gene involved in the TGF-beta signaling pathway with a tumor suppressor role. [93] Its loss of expression is reported in over 50% of CRC, which is associated with lymph node metastases. [94]Some studies also reported that SMAD-4 expression levels are correlated with response to 5-FU. [95,96,97]
In a recent study, Kawaguchi et al. show that in addition to RAS, mutations in TP53 and SMAD-4 are independent negative prognostic factors for survival in patients undergoing resection of CRLM. [98] These authors also demonstrated that the combination of these triple mutation was associated to worse survival than patients thin only one or two of these as well as patients with wild type.
Therefore, a comprehensive mutational tumor profiling shall be performed in these trials and in clinical practice to properly stratify patient’s prognosis and tailor therapy accordingly.
The Microsatellite instability (MSI-H) is reported in a rather low frequency (4-8% of metastatic CRC), making it difficult to stablish definitive conclusions. [99,100] However, the well-known sensitivity of these tumors to immune check points have improve the prognostic of these patients and a recent retrospective study showed that liver resection after immune checkpoints inhibitors are associated to higher rate of pathological complete response long term survival [101].
PD-1 and its respective ligand molecule (PD-L1) are immune checkpoint that deliver co-inhibitory signals that suppress exaggerated immune responses.[102]
Patients with MSI-high or MMR deficient CRC exhibit improved responses to PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy and improved OS rates. [103]
Since 2017, Pembrolizumab has been in use for the treatment of MSI-high metastatic CRC if disease progresses following treatment with 5-FU, oxaliplatin or irinotecan based regimens. [104] In these same patients, the ChekMate-142 trial also showed that nivolumab may adequately control the disease. [105]
Results from KEYNOTE-158 study showed that Pembrolizumab, as an immune checkpoint, is effective in various types of cancers with Tumor burden (defined as the number of mutations in cancer cells’ DNA, reported as mutations per megabase) ≥10 mut/Mb, particularly solid cancers. [106] Latter, the same study reported that pembrolizumab administration improved outcomes in patients with non-resectable MSI-high non-CRC following failure of standard therapy. [107]
Mutations in the CTNNB1 gene can activate the Wnt signaling pathway and are more commons in adenomas than in invasive cancer (12.5% vs 1.4%) but can be found in preliminary stages of CRC and plausibly substitute APC (Adenomatous Polyposis Coli) mutations in cancer onset and progression.[108]
The PIK3CA mutations are present in up to 20% of mCRC.[109] It is associated to the activation of PI3K-Akt pathway which can promote cancer growth and metastasis and may influence treatment decisions.
A retrospective metanalysis concluded that PIK3CA are a poor prognostic factor and a predictive of decreased response to anti-EGFR therapy in patients with mCRC.[110]
A rare mutation, the SMARCB1 loss, with an incidence of less than 1% is associated with a higher histological grade, larger tumor size, lower survival, MSI and BRAF V600E status. It is associated with a subtype of CRC, the small cell carcinoma, which tends to have a poor prognosis and high metastatic potential.[111]
The molecular factors have been the focus of the researchers over the past years to achieve the ultimate goal of personalized medicine using the gene signatures to better risk stratification and therapy selection.
Three multi-gene prognostic signatures had already been developed, the OncotypeDX (12 genes), the coloPrint (18 genes) and the colon cancer DSA (ColDx, with 634 genes)[112]the validation study are still ongoing in Stage II and III CRC patients in the United States, Asia, and Europe.[113]
Two other molecular pathological classifications for CRC are described. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) classified CRC into two groups using integrated molecular analysis: The first group is comprised of hypermutated tumors (~16%) and the second group consisted of non-hypermutated tumors (~84%), microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors with a high frequency of DNA somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) and dysregulated Wnt pathway with frequent mutations in genes including APC, KRAS, PIK3CA, SMD4 and TP53.[109]
The group study of Guinney et al. described the four consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) of CRC: CMS1 (MSI-immune), associated to very poor OS rate after relapse; the CMS2 (canonical) and the CMS3 (metabolic) have better survival rates after relapse, and CMS4 (mesenchymal), the one with the worse prognostic[114]. This genetic classification has been stated as the most robust, but needs fresh tissue and is not ready for prime time.
Finally, another genetic marker must be considered in the algorithm approach oh CRC patients – the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) gene polymorphisms.
The DPYD is a main enzyme in the biochemical functions of the antimetabolite 5-FU as well as capecitabine and the tumor response rate to these drugs and the adverse events depends on DPYD levels [115,116]
The DPYD gene variations are present in 5-7% of the population and account for 23% of life-threatening toxicity from fluoropyrimidine -base chemotherapy. [117,118]
Chemotherapy resistance remains one of the greatest challenges in metastatic cancers and DPD expression level is inversely associated with chemosensitivity. [119]
However, upfront genotyping is not mandated by most well-known guidelines. In 2020, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended testing for DPD deficiency prior to 5-FU treatment. The NCCN and the ASCO have not yet provided recommendations for universal pretreatment genotyping but the NCCN notes strong links between DPYD variants and toxicity risk as well as the potential benefits of testing.[120,121,122,123]
It's important to note that the presence of these genetic markers alone may not be sufficient to predict the development of liver metastasis in an individual patient. The interplay of multiple factors, including the tumor's stage, location, and other clinical variables, must also be considered when assessing the risk of metastasis in colorectal cancer

7. CRCLM – prognostic tools

Prognostic tools are fundamental in CRC patient management, since tumor recurrence and metastases are the main issue in patients´ survival.
The R0 surgical resection is a curative treatment with a reported 5-years overall survival of 20-45%.[124]
The treatment options for these patients are systemic treatment, surgery and/or local ablative techniques, such as thermal ablation (TA) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), may be added to surgery to achieve a complete treatment or provide an alternative to resection if inoperable due to frailty or poor anatomical location for resection.
The treatment selection criteria depend on patient characteristics as well as technical and prognostic criteria.
Patient characteristics include performance status, age, previous treatments and patients’ preferences (QoL and expectations)
The technical criteria are not just a technically resectable question but instead a functional criterion as if the tumors may be resected leaving sufficient remnant liver (30-40% depending on the basal function) and if not, the possibility of liver transplant may be considered for some authors.
The prognostic factors are those that represent the tumor biology and have the true impact on disease free survival. These factors include tumor burden (number, size a lobar distribution), the timing of metastatic disease presentation (synchronous versus metachronous, the primary tumor location and proof of time (response after systemic treatment) as well as molecular profile including RAS/BRAF status and dMMR/MSI.
The patient selection to approach CRCLM has been based on clinical risk scores, the most widely used is the Fong clinical score present in 1999 (disease-free interval <12 months, node-positive primary, more than one liver metastasis, largest lesion > 5 cm in diameter, and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level > 200 μg/L)[125]. This score does not have in consideration the knowledge of the tumor biology. There are more recent scores that incorporate genetic and molecular markers.
In the recent years, other scores have surged like the MD Anderson modified CRS (mCRS), the RAS Mutation Clinical Risk Score and the Genetic and Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score. The last two have been externally validated and appears to be superior to FONG’s [126,127]
A recent study demonstrated that GAME score has superior discriminatory capacity compared to both FONG score and mCRS score.[128]
Other isolated prognostic parameters have been analyzed. An large multicenter study with 1643 used a statistical technique previous described by Allen et al. to define optimal cut offs values for the three most commonly employed prognostic factors: 2.95 cm for tumor size, 1.5 for tumor number and 6.15 ng/ml for CEA levels.[129]
The inclusion of our actual knowledge concerning molecular and genetic markers into decision-making process of these patients is our next step to optimization of existing prognostic tools

8. CRCLM – Therapeutic approach

In the case of CRC with irresectable LM, there are some consensuses to start a systemic treatment as a conversion therapy. The patients must be re-evaluated every 8-12 weeks with a maximum of 6 months to achieve maxim response. If some response is present and liver resection is feasible assenting at least 30% of liver remanent, the 5 years OS rates in retrospective studies range from 25-58%[130]
Nearly 70% will develop recurrent disease in 2 years and up to 50% will recur within the liver alone [131]
The NCCN guidelines give us 3 treatment options for patients with CRC and synchronous and resectable LM: (1) synchronous or staged colectomy with resection of metastatic disease followed by 6 months of adjuvant ChT; (2) Neoadjuvant ChT (NAChT) (2-3 months) followed by synchronous or staged colectomy and resection of the metastatic diseases supported by remaining 3-4 months of adjuvant therapy; (3) colectomy followed by ChT (2-3 months) and staged resection of liver disease with 3-4 months remaining adjuvant ChT.
In fact, both American and European Guidelines recognize the role of chemotherapy and recommend the use of 6 months of oxaliplatin-based regimen in addition to surgery [29, 30, 56]. However, the timing of this treatment remains unclear and both perioperative and post-operative treatment offer potential advantages and disadvantages.
The ChT drugs preferred are FOLFOX or CAPEOX followed by FOLFIRI or FOLFIRINOX. Besides the double or triple schemes, the addition of a target agent leads to a more effective treatment. Patients with RAS mutant CRC should be treated with Bevacizumab.
The main advantages and limitations for each treatment option approach will be mentioned below.

8.1. CRCLM – Neoadjuvant ChT

The increasingly effective systemic drugs have prompted interest in preoperative or neoadjuvant treatment prior to liver resection. The neoadjuvant ChT is not questionable in cases of borderline resectable lesions as conversion therapy, which will make the liver resection feasible, in the case of unressectable ones or easier by reducing the lesions size, or in the algorithm of rectal tumors, in the rest of the cases it should be considered case by case
For patients with R0 resectable and favorable oncological criteria: up to 4 lesions, metachronous presentation and liver only site, there is no level 1 evidence to support the improve survival with upfront ChT and upfront surgery should be done. Some centers will administer neoadjuvant ChT for nearly all patients with resectable CRCLM to select who will most benefit from resection, particularly in patients with a synchronous presentation of metastatic disease.
The ideal selection criteria, specific drug scheme and duration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the best way in which chemotherapy should be interdigitated with surgery in patients who present with synchronous metastatic disease have not been well defined.
A Randomized controlled trial showed some benefit in disease free survival but no benefit of overall survival if neoadjuvant ChT with FOLFOX was used in up front resectable LM [132,133] Other retrospective studies showed no benefits [134].
The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 40983 trial showed no improvement in OS or DFS when compared patients summited to 6 cycles of FOLFOX pre and 6 cycles pos operatively versus surgery alone[133].
In patients with bad biology, a preoperative ChT for no more than 2 months with fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin should be proposed and liver resection should be delayed at least four weeks after completion of ChT (FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan), 6-8 weeks if bevacizumab was used.
Currently, three biologic agents-bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab-are approved for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. There are no clear advantage of the addition Monoclonal antibodies binding to VEGF or to the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in the neoadjuvant setting of resectable LM and there are conflicting data regarding the use of FOLFOX + cetuximab in patients who have potentially resectable liver metastases. Its use is stablished for unresectable lesions being the Bevacizumab, the only biologic agent approved for RAS/NRAS/BRAF mutated tumors.
The main concern about upfront ChT is that the small lesions may disappear and be missing during the surgery while still active in terms of presence of tumor cells. This effect and the liver toxicity induced by ChT increases the risk of liver surgery complications as well as the possibility of progression besides resection, leading to unresectable situations.
The guidelines that support NAChT considered it as a possibility of early treatment of micrometastasis and a “proof of time” that translate the tumor biology as the response to chemotherapy may avoid unnecessary surgery for those who present early disease progression. Besides that, the tumor downsizing allows liver preservation and more manageable tumors, which typically result in better surgical outcomes. The 5 year OS in patients that progressed after NAChT even when an R0 resection is obtained is 8% vs 30-37%, in cases of stable or partial response[135].
To specifically address this issue, the CHARISMA trial is an ongoing multicenter randomized phase III clinical trial evaluating the impact on OS of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable CRC liver metastases and a high clinical risk score (Fong score 3–5).[136]

8.2. CRCLM – Best surgical algorithm approach

The management of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis typically involves a multidisciplinary approach that may include surgery, chemotherapy, and other treatment modalities. The choice of the best surgical approach depends on several factors, including the location and size of the primary colorectal tumor, the number and size of liver metastases, the overall health of the patient, and the potential for achieving curative or palliative goals.[19,123]
A controversial issue is the timing of hepatic resection in patients who have liver metastases at initial presentation. The primary tumor resection is clearly indicated in symptomatic primary tumors (obstruction or hemorrhage).[123,137]
In the cases of asymptomatic CRC and synchronous liver metastasis the liver first vs synchronous resection varies between expert groups. First, synchronous can only be considered in patients with few and superficial lesion, where is not expected to be need major hepatectomies given the consideration that major liver resections may increase the risk of colorectal anastomosis due to pringle times and risk of post operative complications.[138,139,140,141]
Liver first approach appears to be consensual in the cases of rectal tumors in the window between completion of chemoradiotherapy and the ensuing evaluation of treatment response before surgical treatment of the rectal primary tumor[142]
Although these concerns, some groups refer that approaching the most prognostic impact disease first should be considered first. In a recent study, Giuliante et al. analyzed the results of 7360 patients from LiverMetsSurvey database and proposed a tumor burden-driven strategy: for patients with multiple bilobar metastases, a liver first approach has a clear survival advantage; In cases of solitary lesions or multiple unilobar lesions, the staged procedure showed to be equivalent regarding survival [143]
A recent meta-analyses including 6417 patients operated between 2000 and 2021 suggested that simultaneous and staged strategies are similar regarding long term survival although the length of hospital stay and pos operative mortality may differ from groups. The simultaneous resection was associated with shorter length of stay (median of 4 days shorter) and although there were no differences in general complications rates, the risk of postoperative mortality was higher in the resection group.[144]
A retrospective multicentric analysis with 1116 patients reported, after a propensity match analysis, demonstrated a comparable 90 days mortality as well as a similar 3 years OS, between simultaneous resection versus staged resection of the colorectal liver metastases, although simultaneous resection had a higher incidence of overall and severe surgical complications [139]
Sijberden et al. reported a retrospective study from an international database with 766 patients with synchronous CRCLM submitted to different types of liver and colorectal resection. They concluded that synchronous resection should be reserved for CRCLM patients in whom minor liver resection would suffice and those requiring left sided-colectomy[145]
The unique RCT with 105 patients showed that perioperative complications did not differ between both strategies (49% and 46% (p = 0.70), in simultaneous- and delayed-resection groups, respectively) and DFS tends to be superior in simultaneous resection after a median follow up of 47 months (p=0.05).[146]
On the other hand, a large multicenter study with more than 23 000 patients reported that 30 day morbidity were higher among patients treated with simultaneous resection even after controlling for confounding factors like extent or risk of the procedure [138]
Careful patient selection remains the paramount when determine the optimal surgical approach in patients presenting with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastasis.

8.3. CRCLM – Surgical options

There are several options to surgical remove the liver disease: major or minor hepatectomy, two stage hepatectomy and liver transplant.
Liver R0 resection and or ablation offers the only possibility of cure for patients with CRCLM with a reported 5- and 10-years OS of 55-71% and 25%, respectively. However only up to 20% of the patients are eligible for intervention and a substantial proportion of these do not benefit from surgery, as approximately half of them develop systemic disease within 3 years of resection. [147,148]
Liver surgery should be considered 5-12 weeks after the previous ChT or at least 5 weeks after ChT if Bevacizumab has been used according to NCCN guidelines, while ESMO guidelines recommended the optimal operation time is 6-8 weeks after NaChT [137,149]
The optimal timing is still controversial. Some groups defend that longer interval to surgery can increase the rate of tumor downstaging and the rate of pathological complete response and others authors suggested that a longer interval might increase the difficulty of surgery and reduce the results quality and for that reason, it should be done as soon as the lesions became technically resectable.
A recent propensity match analysis compared two groups: early resection (4 ≤ TTS < 6) and delayed resection subgroup (6 ≤ TTS ≤ 8) and concluded that early surgical resection subgroup had better OS and DFS. [150] Other studies have also suggested that surgical resection more than 6 weeks after NA ChT can lead to regrowth of potential resistant tumor cell population [151,152]
Due to the advances in the FLR grow strategies and the downstaging/conversion therapy, the number of patients considered eligible for CRCLM continues to increase (from 1-2% to 15-30% which offers a 5-years OS rate of 25-44% in different series but up to two thirds will recurred and 15% die within a year.[135,148,153]
The Parenchyma sparing hepatectomy (PSH) was described by Gold et al. who demonstrated that wedge uni or bilobar resections have no impact on oncological outcomes if R0 is completed [154]. The authors reported a similar DFS and OS when compared standard or extended hepatectomies. Besides the absence of impact on the oncological outcome, the benefit of PSH include the lower complications associated to liver surgery with shorter intensive care units, lower liver failure rate, low drop of cases (because more patients received adjuvant ChT) and the possibility to perform a salvage rehepatectomy which is very important given the recurrence rate of the disease.
However, the PSH strategy does not fit for all. In the past 20 years, some new surgical strategies have appeared to increase the rate of resectable patients: The two-stage hepatectomy. It was described in 2000 by Adam et al. and consists in two steps surgery, in the first intervention, the liver parenchyma is transected along the intended line of resection and the FLR is cleaned by partial resections or ablation from all tumor tissue and a portal vein embolization or ligature is associated. The second surgical time is performed after and the deportalized liver is removed completely a resection [155]
The ALPPS procedure (Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Stage hepatectomy) was described in 2012 and the long-term oncologic results of this technique was first published in 2020 from a cohort from 22 international centers. The 3- and 5-year cancer-specific survival after ALPPS were 59%, and 33%. Regardless to prognostic factors the response to neoadjuvant ChT was the strongest independent predictor of short and long-term oncologic outcome and the T4 stage, right side location of the primary tumor and KRAS mutation were negative predictor factors. [156]
The selection criteria for these procedures are not uniform and varies between groups and the results are difficult to compare given the heterogeneity of the cohorts.
Liver transplant (LT) is an acceptable option in certain hepatic malignancies like HCC and hilar cholangiocarcinoma.
Although it is also acceptable for some cases of secondary lesions, like neuroendocrine tumors, with a 5-y OS of 52%, the poor outcomes reported in the cases of unresectable CRCLM make the LT a controversial option in these cases.[157,158]
As reported before here, only about 20% of the patients are eligible for surgery and the one unsuitable for complete resection, palliative ChT is the only option which achieves a 5-year OS of less than 10%.
The Norwegian RCT (SECA-I) showed a 5-years OS of 60% as well as the Toso et al. retrospective study with a 5-Y OS of 50%±16%[159,160]
Another study comparing the SECA-I with those who received ChT (NORDIC VII trial) showed a significant difference in OS in favor of LT (5-y OS of 56% versus 9%[161])
The SECA-II included patients with liver only metastases, at least 10% of response to systemic therapy, minimum 1 year to the diagnostic of the metastasis’s ant LT list inclusion, maximum size of 10cm before ChT or under 5cm if more than 30 lesions and at least 30% of response under ChT. The OS at 1, 2 and 5 years was 100%, 83% and 83% respectively.[162]
There are several ongoing trials to confirm these results. The TRANSMET (Liver Transplantation in Patients with Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases Treated by Chemotherapy- NCT02597348) trial is a Multicenter randomized trial comparing the 5-years survival of chemotherapy followed by LT versus chemotherapy alone; the SECA-III (NCT03494946), RCT comparing LT versus chemotherapy/TACE/SIRT or other treatment options. Results will be expected in 2027.[163,164] There is also an Italian multicenter RCT, COLT (Improving Outcome of Selected Patients with Non-resectable Hepatic Metastases from Colo-rectal Cancer with Liver Transplantation) comparing LT after chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone in a cohort of patients with the RAS and BRAF WT and MSI tumors (NCT03803436) and the Swedish study SOULMATE NCT04161092 with only BRAF wild-type and MSI patients [165].
The shortage of deceased organ donors is the main problem associated to the use of grafts in patients without the conventional indications. In order to overcome this issue, other transplant options have emerged, namely the RAPID (Resection And Partial Liver segment 2/3 transplantation with Delayed total hepatectomy) and LIVER-T(W)O-HEAL.
At the time of transplantation, segments 1 to 3 are resected in the patient and orthotopically replaced by a segment 2 to 3 allograft. Portal inflow is modulated (portal vein pressure below 20 mm Hg). A second-stage hepatectomy is performed as soon as the graft has regenerated to reached at least 0.8% of the recipient body weight or 35-40% of standardizes total liver volume.[166,167]
This hybrid of the auxiliary LT and the ALPPS procedure concept has the advantage of not reduce the liver donor pool. There is a prospective ongoing study in Oslo University Hospital as well as north American transplant center[168]

8.4. CRCLM – Ablation techniques

When the patient criteria do not allow a surgical intervention or in cases of unclear prognostic situation or even to pause or delay systemic treatment there are several ablative techniques available that provide an opportunity for curative intent. This local treatment options can be curative as 20-45 % of the patients can undergo a complete A0 of their metastasis[169]
The objective of ablation in resectable patients is similar, to achieve complete local control A0[135]
Local treatment techniques have a particular interest in the oligometastatic disease Currently there is no consensus as the number and location of the metastatic lesions however most clinical protocols and clinicians accept the definition of oligometastatic disease as: 1-3 or 1-5 metastatic lesions; up to 2 -3 sites of metastasis and a controlled primary tumor). Let us be conscious that this definition does not include the tumor biology, so care must be taken to select the therapeutic options in these patients.
Local metastasis therapies include the radiofrequency (RF), Microwave ablation, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and more recently stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Factors that conditioned the selection of these techniques are size, location and the RAS status.
Some studies have reported OS similar to those of hepatectomy for some of ablation techniques (up to 55% at 5-years)[170,171]
The RF is the old one and the most commonly form of thermal ablation used in liver tumors, applicable in tumors with ≤ 5 cm (ideally not larger than 3 cm) allowing as much as 94% of local control and a 5-year OS of up to 40% for small solitary CRCLM.
A recent metanalyses showed however, that RF had a higher recurrence rate and lower OS at 1,3 and 5 years for CRCLM. In addition, a study reported that there was no difference between RF and liver resection at 10 years of DFS. In these reports, the tumor size (more than 3 cm), old age, primary node positive and metachronous metastasis were an independent factor of survival.[172]
Two recent meta-analyses recognized a superiority in OS and DFS with reduced local recurrence favoring the surgical resection, even in lesions with less than 3 cm [173,174]
These conclusions should be analyzed with caution, since most of this studies that that considered surgery is superior to RF include a heterogenous group of patients to compare. The RF group include more patients with extrahepatic disease, comorbidities, prior liver resection and higher values of CEA.
The LAVA trial was a multicenter RCT with the goal to compare thermal ablation versus liver resection in high risk surgical patients that was stopped after 1 year and the COLLISION trial is an ongoing RCT that pretend to compare RF to liver resection for patients with under 3 cm lesions[175]
When we search for RF versus ChT alone, there are some studies, including RCT that show a longer survival in favor of RF.[176]
In conclusion, RF is a valid less option as a minimally invasive treatment with low complicated rates that can be repeated to treat progression or new lesions and do not require prolonged interruption of chemotherapy. For these reasons, there is a growing interest that RF could reach same oncologic results as surgery.[177]
The cryoablation with liquid nitrogen or argon gas has fallen out due to the higher complication rate and recurrence comparing with RF.[178]
The Microwave ablation is a percutaneous procedure that uses electromagnetic signal to generate heat through molecular friction. It is indicated for patients considered not fit for surgery or in unresectable lesions. It allows the approach of more larger and central lesions than RF and the 5 year OS is 37%[141]
TACE transarterial chemoembolization consists in a shutdown of blood flow and the simultaneous release of high doses of the drug trough the administration of embolic particles mixed with chemotherapeutic drug. It’s an option in patients not fit for surgery, not candidates to ablation or when the ChT fails. It has significant toxicity and a 5 years OS of 6%[141]
Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) or Selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 (SIRT) is a type of intra-arterial brachytherapy that targets hipervascular nodules with 2.5mm range of tissue penetration. This allows the safe administration of high doses of radiation to the tumor. It is indication for palliative patients with multifocal irresectable lesions It is better tolerated than TACE.[179]
The SBRT Stereotactic body radiation therapy delivers precise external beam radiation using 4-D imaging and appears to allow the treatment of liver metastasis with an ablative intent while significantly limiting the dose to the healthy liver and surrounding tissues. There is no clear advantage over ablation or ChT and the OS reported varies between 24-27 months. [141]The retrospective and prospective clinical studies have refer as safe and effective technique with minimal and promising OS[180,181] the majority of the studies have treated a1 to 3 liver lesions but multiple liver metastasis can be treated with sequential SBRT with 5-years OS of 57%.

9. After CRCLM resection – the role of histopathological growth patterns and the immune system

The histopathological growth patterns (HGP)play a crucial role in the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of liver metastasis from colorectal cancer. These growth patterns reflect the interaction between tumor cells and the host in a particular microenvironment provide valuable insights into the behavior of the metastatic lesions and can guide treatment decisions.
There are 3 described patterns associated with different responses to QT and consequently different rates of relapse and prognosis: Replacement (rHGP), Pushing (pHGP), also classified as non-desmoplastic (ndHGP), and Desmoplastic (dHGP), the latter being associated with better prognosis (OS up to 80% at 5 years). [182,183,184]
In 2015, R. L. Eefsen et al., showed higher R0 resection rates for dHGP suggesting that the different recurrence rates after surgery could be explained by HGP. [185] The same author concluded that some characteristics of the tumor microenvironment (TME) differ between HGP but only in those patients not undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. [186]
The main limitation of this information is the fact that can only be access after surgical resection and therefore too late as more aggressive HGP may require aggressive strategies like NAChT or, in a more extent, liver resection. The radiomics is being developed to try to overcome this handicap (see below) but a better correlation with primary tumor characteristics and with liquid biopsies are need.
The immune system plays a crucial role in the growth and metastasis process. With the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors into clinical practice, the interest of the scientific community in the study of the TME has been growing.
Pagès et al., reported that MHCCR are characterized by high levels of CD3+, CD8+ and CD45R0 lymphocytes, with their distribution being asymmetrical and greater on the periphery of the lesions and that dHGP have a higher density of CD8+ cells, a finding later reproduced by others. [187]
D. J. Höppener et al. evaluated the TME of MHCCR from chemo-naïve patients, comparing dHGP with ndHGP.[188] The greater infiltration of CD8+ T lymphocytes associated with dHGP corroborates what was previously described: patients with ndHGP have a higher risk of recurrence after surgical treatment. [189]
Last year, G. Garcia-Vicién et al., mentioned an immunosuppressive microenvironment in MHCCR with ndHGP and an antitumor immune microenvironment in MHCCR with dHGP, a fact that reinforces the better prognosis associated with encapsulating metastases.[190]
While T cells are gaining notoriety in this field, little is known about the impact on the prognosis of B cells. [191,192] It is believed that the release of cytokines by B cells can increase the antitumor response of T and J cells. Hof et al. suggested that high infiltration of CD79A+ B cells may be an indicator of a favorable prognosis after surgery.[193]
A 2022 prospective study, has taken a step further in the characterization of CRC liver metastasis as they characterized 60 different T-cell populations in tumor and peri-tumor liver tissue that were also subdivided according to their HGP. They reported that the immune microenvironment within CRC liver metastasis lacks infiltrated lymphocytes and presents an immunosuppressive profile compared to the non-tumor samples. They also correlated the metastasis size with the percentage of IL-17-producing cells present in tumor samples and identified and increasing of cells with antitumor activities (CD8+ CD185+ cells and effector CD8+ T cells) that can be new targets for CRC LM. [194]
Later, they also found that tumor samples with a desmoplastic growth pattern exhibited a significantly decreased percentage of CD274 (PD-L1) - and CD206-positive cells which are proteins associated with poor prognosis and disease progression, therefore reinforcing the role of dHGP as predictors of better outcome. They found a correlation between a lower expression of CD206 or CD274 on classical, intermediate, and non-classical monocytes and increased disease-free survival, which points to a better prognosis for these patients.[195]
In summary, the tumor microenvironment, particularly the innate immune system, seemed to play a crucial role in the progression of CRCLM and its study is essential for a better understanding of the pathophysiology of CRCLM and further treatment planning. The future lies in the possibility of correlating these TME characteristics with peripheral blood analysis. Once again, the liquid biopsies appear to have an important role in the CRC patients’ future algorithm.

10. After CRCLM resection – The role of liver margin

To reach a R0 resection is considered the most important factor associated with better prognosis in terms of 5-year OS: 55% in R0 patients vs 26% in R1 patients; p=0.017.[196]Multivariate analysis has identified R1 resection (p=0.03) as a factor independently associated with worse survival [197]
The width of margin has a well kwon importance and the evolution from the 1cm to 1mm rule to the actual knowledge that margin width does not affect the outcome as long as negative margin is achieved.[198]
An "incomplete resection" or "microscopically positive margin" that defines the R1 resection can still provide symptomatic relief and local tumor control; it is associated with a higher risk of local recurrence and poorer long-term outcomes. In these cases, adjuvant treatments may be considered.
Besides, there is an additional distinction that should be done: R1 parenchymal resection and R1 vascular resection because Vigano et al. demonstrated that R1 vascular resection guaranteed the same local control as R0 parenchymal resection[199]
In the literature, an R1 resection varies between an involved margin (width =0mm) or a margin width less than 1mm and this absence of universal adopted definition can mislead the interpretation of different studies results that reported R1 as worse OS to no significance as predictor of survival [200]
Some concerns have equally been raised in relation to the margin width and the HGP, since patients with non-desmoplasic HGP are at higher risk of positive resection margin. [182,201]
In conclusion, R1 resections are associated with local recurrence and worse long term results but are still better option than no resection. [200]We believe that the future challenge in the field of surgical resection of CRLM is to integrate the disease biology in the resection margins.

11. CRCLM –adjuvant chemotherapy

Adjuvant Chemotherapy aims to eradicate micrometastatic disease, to reduce recurrence and prolong OS after a R0 resection with curative intent. If there is a clear OS benefit from resection in patients with limited hepatic metastases from CRC, the role of systemic or regional therapy following metastasectomy is far less certain.
Some RCT have study this question: The French FFCD trial recruited 173 patients who had undergone R0 CRCLM. The patients were stratified according to LM size, number of lesions and time of metastasis diagnosis. The 2- and 5-years DFS was 50.4% and 33.5%, for those treated with chemotherapy, and 38.1% and 26.7% for the surgery only group, respectively (p= 0.028). The OS favored the ChT arm but the results did not reached statistical significance (p=0.13). [202]
The EORTC (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer) trial evaluated the results of perioperative FOLFOX (six cycles preoperatively, six postoperatively) versus observation alone in patients with initially resectable CRCLM and reported an improved on 3-y OS when ChT was used.[132] However, the 5-years OS update showed no differences. [133]
The EPOC study evaluated the benefit of perioperative (12 weeks pre and 12Weeks pos) oxaliplatin plus a fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with initially resectable liver and concluded that the addition of cetuximab was associated with significantly worse progression-free survival.[203]
Despite the paucity of the data regarding OS benefit, the NCCN guidelines recommended a total of 6 months of perioperative ChT for patients who have undergone CRCLM resection. The FOLFOX or CAPEOX appears to be the preferred regimen for this group of patients[137,204] There is no place for biologic agents in the adjuvant setting of initial resectable CRCLM.
The hepatic artery intra-arterial chemotherapy (HAI) is used as an adjuvant treatment combined with systemic chemotherapy to reduce the risk of recurrence. Its concept has evolved in the past 30 years and is now accepted as first line of treatment in some countries, for unresectable or as adjuvant therapy
The technique expertise and knowledge requirement to manage treatment is the main reason for this is infrequently used. The early four RCT compared adjuvant HAI with either systemic therapy or a no treatment revealed mixed results [25,205,206,207]
A report from 2017 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center revealed an increase of the OS from 44 moths to 67 months (p < 0.01) for patients treated with HAI versus adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone[204]
The ongoing PUMP trial is planned to evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant HAI in low risk patients and the PACHA-01 trial is comparing adjuvant systemic FOLFOX and Oxaliplatin + systemic 5-FU in patients having 4 or more resected lesions and R0 or R1 resection and/or thermal ablation.[208], [209]
This liver-directed therapy with HAI can target residual micrometastatic disease, to reduce the risk of hepatic recurrence and improve survival. In patients with unresectable lesions, HAI can be used to increased response rates even in patients after progression on first and second line of ChT.[210]

12. CRCLM –Future directions

Liver metastasis from colorectal cancer is a significant clinical challenge, but there have been several new perspectives and advances in the management of this condition.
An ongoing research focus are the developing of non-invasive, highly sensitive biomarkers to allow an early detection of CRCLM, the areas of imaging technologies and liquid biopsies are definitively the future
The advances in genomics and molecular profiling have led to a deeper understanding of the genetic and molecular characteristics of colorectal cancer. This knowledge allows for the identification of specific mutations and biomarkers that can guide treatment decisions and allowing a more tailored treatment strategy.
The immunotherapy has a long way of discovers yet. The immune checkpoints inhibitors are a still growing field based in new targets that are discovery every day. We believed that personalized immunotherapeutic approaches, that boost the immune system’s response against metastatic lesions, would be a major player in the upcoming future.
The radiology and the intervention radiology may play a more interventive role in the CRCLM approach. We believe that the future may bring us image-guided interventions for precise tumor removal. The development of more complex image system that allow us to predict tumor biology is also definitively a near future and will have a role in individualized medicine.
The systemic drugs available and the drug delivery systems have a huge potential of optimization. The role of nanomedicine for direct liver metastases treatment has been reported with better drug efficacy and reduced side effects.
The use of the liquid biopsies is gaining importance monitoring treatment response and detecting the emergence of resistance mutations. As said before, it allows real-time monitoring and that way a more dynamic view of the disease progression. Optimization of this analysis is necessary to be widely use in clinical practice.
The Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are scarry potential tools. The possibility of utilizing AI algorithms to analyze medical images and identify metastatic lesions at an early stage and the development of predictive models to assess the risk of liver metastasis in CRC patients can change the known therapeutic decision process.
Besides all of these promising advances there is an area that we need to improve that did not necessarily depend on medical advances: The quality of life of these patients. Focus on the supportive care and palliative measures incorporating psychological and emotional support into the treatment process of the patients and families must be a key in all of this process because we do research to treat people.
Another crucial part of the future of CRC patients’ approach is the knowledge sharing. It is important to develop global health initiatives promoting collaboration between medical institutions, researchers and pharmaceutical companies to accelerate progress and to expanding access to CRC screening, diagnosis and treatment in underserved regions as these collaborative efforts may reduce the global burden of CRCLM.
Advances in these areas aim to improve patient outcomes, enhance the understanding of the disease, and provide more effective treatment options.

13. Discussion

The approach to CRLM has witnessed remarkable progress with increasingly curative potential. Multidisciplinary strategies, encompassing surgical innovations, systemic therapies, and advanced imaging, have collectively improved the algorithm approach.
The future holds exciting possibilities with a focus on precision medicine and immunotherapy providing hope for a brighter outlook for these patients.
As we look ahead, the emphasis on precision medicine, liquid biopsy technologies and a deeper understanding of the immune microenvironment offers prospects for earlier detection, more effective treatments, and long-term control of CRLM. However, these promising avenues require ongoing research and clinical trials to translate potential into reality.
In summary, the management of colorectal cancer liver metastases is evolving rapidly, and its future is filled with optimism. The collaborative efforts of clinicians, researchers, and innovative technologies are paving the way for improved patient outcomes and a brighter future for those facing this challenging condition.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R. and R.C.O.; investigation, A.R.; data curation, A.R. and P.S.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.; writing—review and editing, R.C.O.; supervision, J.G.T..;. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. H. Sung et al., “Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries,” CA. Cancer J. Clin., vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 209–249, May 2021. [CrossRef]
  2. “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.,” 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/topics/cancer-deaths.htm.
  3. J. J. Morton et al., “XactMice: humanizing mouse bone marrow enables microenvironment reconstitution in a patient-derived xenograft model of head and neck cancer,” Oncogene, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 290–300, Jan. 2016. [CrossRef]
  4. F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. L. Siegel, L. A. Torre, and A. Jemal, “Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries,” CA. Cancer J. Clin., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 394–424, 2018. [CrossRef]
  5. “Colorectal cancer. Gco.iarc.fr. 2020.” gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/10_8_ 9-Colorectum-fact-sheet.pdf.
  6. R. S. Bresalier, “Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Changing World,” Gastroenterol. Clin. North Am., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 577–591, Sep. 2022. [CrossRef]
  7. D. Rong et al., “MGP promotes CD8 + T cell exhaustion by activating the NF-κB pathway leading to liver metastasis of colorectal cancer,”. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 18(6), 2345–2361. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. S. K. Veettil et al., “Role of Diet in Colorectal Cancer Incidence,” JAMA Netw. Open, vol. 4, no. 2, p. e2037341, Feb. 2021. [CrossRef]
  9. L. J. Bou Malhab and W. M. Abdel-Rahman, “Obesity and Inflammation: Colorectal Cancer Engines,” Curr. Mol. Pharmacol., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 620–646, Jul. 2022. [CrossRef]
  10. Y. Hao, Y. Wang, M. Qi, X. He, Y. Zhu, and J. Hong, “Risk Factors for Recurrent Colorectal Polyps,” Gut Liver, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 399–411, Jul. 2020. [CrossRef]
  11. C.-G. Guo et al., “Aspirin Use and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Among Older Adults,” JAMA Oncol., vol. 7, no. 3, p. 428, Mar. 2021. [CrossRef]
  12. N. Chapelle, M. Martel, E. Toes-Zoutendijk, A. N. Barkun, and M. Bardou, “Recent advances in clinical practice: colorectal cancer chemoprevention in the average-risk population,” Gut, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 2244–2255, Dec. 2020. [CrossRef]
  13. L. Bailie, M. B. Loughrey, and H. G. Coleman, “Lifestyle Risk Factors for Serrated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” Gastroenterology, vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 92–104, Jan. 2017. [CrossRef]
  14. J. A. Sninsky, B. M. Shore, G. V. Lupu, and S. D. Crockett, “Risk Factors for Colorectal Polyps and Cancer,” Gastrointest. Endosc. Clin. N. Am., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 195–213, Apr. 2022. [CrossRef]
  15. D. A. Corley et al., “Variation of Adenoma Prevalence by Age, Sex, Race, and Colon Location in a Large Population: Implications for Screening and Quality Programs,” Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 172–180, Feb. 2013. [CrossRef]
  16. U. Testa, E. Pelosi, and G. Castelli, “Colorectal Cancer: Genetic Abnormalities, Tumor Progression, Tumor Heterogeneity, Clonal Evolution and Tumor-Initiating Cells,” Med. Sci., vol. 6, no. 2, p. 31, Apr. 2018. [CrossRef]
  17. R. L. Siegel, K. D. Miller, H. E. Fuchs, and A. Jemal, “Cancer Statistics, 2021,” CA. Cancer J. Clin., vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 7–33, Jan. 2021. [CrossRef]
  18. R. Wang et al., “Single-cell genomic and transcriptomic landscapes of primary and metastatic colorectal cancer tumors,” Genome Med., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 93, Aug. 2022. [CrossRef]
  19. V. De Falco et al., “How we treat metastatic colorectal cancer,”. ESMO Open 2019, 4, e000813. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. K. Naxerova et al., “Origins of lymphatic and distant metastases in human colorectal cancer,” Science (80-. )., vol. 357, no. 6346, pp. 55–60, Jul. 2017. [CrossRef]
  21. F. Benedix, R. Kube, F. Meyer, U. Schmidt, I. Gastinger, and H. Lippert, “Comparison of 17,641 Patients With Right- and Left-Sided Colon Cancer: Differences in Epidemiology, Perioperative Course, Histology, and Survival,” Dis. Colon Rectum, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 57–64, Jan. 2010. [CrossRef]
  22. J. W. Holch, I. Ricard, S. Stintzing, D. P. Modest, and V. Heinemann, “The relevance of primary tumour location in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of first-line clinical trials,” Eur. J. Cancer, vol. 70, pp. 87–98, Jan. 2017. [CrossRef]
  23. V. Gopalan, R. A. Smith, Y.-H. Ho, and A. K.-Y. Lam, “Signet-ring cell carcinoma of colorectum--current perspectives and molecular biology.,” Int. J. Colorectal Dis., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 127–33, Feb. 2011. [CrossRef]
  24. Y. Imai, “Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma of the colon: subsite location and clinicopathologic features.,” Int. J. Colorectal Dis., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 187–96, Feb. 2015. [CrossRef]
  25. M. M. Kemeny et al., “Combined-Modality Treatment for Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma to the Liver: Surgical Resection of Hepatic Metastases in Combination With Continuous Infusion of Chemotherapy—An Intergroup Study,” J. Clin. Oncol., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1499–1505, Mar. 2002. [CrossRef]
  26. C. Santos et al., “Clinicopathological risk factors of Stage II colon cancer: results of a prospective study.,” Colorectal Dis., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 414–22, Apr. 2013. [CrossRef]
  27. X. Bessa et al., “Validation Microsatellite Path Score in a Population-Based Cohort of Patients With Colorectal Cancer,” J. Clin. Oncol., vol. 29, no. 25, pp. 3374–3380, Sep. 2011. [CrossRef]
  28. R. A. Lothe et al., “Genomic instability in colorectal cancer: relationship to clinicopathological variables and family history.,” Cancer Res., vol. 53, no. 24, pp. 5849–52, Dec. 1993, [Online]. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8261392.
  29. M. A. Mahler, F. Marcaccio, J.-M. Dumonceau, and C. Macías Gómez, “Successful Endoscopic Management of Late Biliary Cast Syndrome in a Liver Transplant Recipient: A Case Report,” Case Rep. Gastroenterol., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 207–211, Apr. 2017. [CrossRef]
  30. Z. Jin and F. A. Sinicrope, “Prognostic and Predictive Values of Mismatch Repair Deficiency in Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,” Cancers (Basel)., vol. 13, no. 2, p. 300, Jan. 2021. [CrossRef]
  31. J. Hogan et al., “Lymphovascular Invasion,” Dis. Colon Rectum, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 547–555, Jun. 2015. [CrossRef]
  32. J. Betge et al., “Intramural and extramural vascular invasion in colorectal cancer,” Cancer, vol. 118, no. 3, pp. 628–638, Feb. 2012. [CrossRef]
  33. R. Amri, J. England, L. G. Bordeianou, and D. L. Berger, “Risk Stratification in Patients with Stage II Colon Cancer,” Ann. Surg. Oncol., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 3907–3914, Nov. 2016. [CrossRef]
  34. M. R. S. Siddiqui et al., “A meta-analysis comparing the risk of metastases in patients with rectal cancer and MRI-detected extramural vascular invasion (mrEMVI) vs mrEMVI-negative cases,” Br. J. Cancer, vol. 116, no. 12, pp. 1513–1519, Jun. 2017. [CrossRef]
  35. H. Ueno, J. Murphy, J. R. Jass, H. Mochizuki, and I. C. Talbot, “Tumour `budding’ as an index to estimate the potential of aggressiveness in rectal cancer,” Histopathology, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 127–132, Feb. 2002. [CrossRef]
  36. H. C. van Wyk, J. Park, C. Roxburgh, P. Horgan, A. Foulis, and D. C. McMillan, “The role of tumour budding in predicting survival in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer: A systematic review,” Cancer Treat. Rev., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 151–159, Feb. 2015. [CrossRef]
  37. Lugli et al., “Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016,” Mod. Pathol., vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1299–1311, Sep. 2017. [CrossRef]
  38. R. N. Berri and E. K. Abdalla, “Curable metastatic colorectal cancer: Recommended paradigms,” Curr. Oncol. Rep., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 200–208, May 2009. [CrossRef]
  39. C. Charnsangavej, B. Clary, Y. Fong, A. Grothey, T. M. Pawlik, and M. A. Choti, “Selection of Patients for Resection of Hepatic Colorectal Metastases: Expert Consensus Statement,” Ann. Surg. Oncol., vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 1261–1268, Oct. 2006. [CrossRef]
  40. F. Fiz et al., “Radiomics of Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review,” Cancers (Basel)., vol. 12, no. 10, p. 2881, Oct. 2020. [CrossRef]
  41. R. C. J. Beckers et al., “CT texture analysis in colorectal liver metastases and the surrounding liver parenchyma and its potential as an imaging biomarker of disease aggressiveness, response and survival,” Eur. J. Radiol., vol. 102, pp. 15–21, May 2018. [CrossRef]
  42. Rahmim et al., “Prognostic modeling for patients with colorectal liver metastases incorporating FDG PET radiomic features,” Eur. J. Radiol., vol. 113, pp. 101–109, Apr. 2019. [CrossRef]
  43. Z. Bodalal, S. Trebeschi, T. D. L. Nguyen-Kim, W. Schats, and R. Beets-Tan, “Radiogenomics: bridging imaging and genomics,” Abdom. Radiol., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1960–1984, Jun. 2019. [CrossRef]
  44. M. Campos-da-Paz, J. G. Dórea, A. S. Galdino, Z. G. M. Lacava, and M. de Fatima Menezes Almeida Santos, “Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) and Hepatic Metastasis in Colorectal Cancer: Update on Biomarker for Clinical and Biotechnological Approaches,” Recent Pat. Biotechnol., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 269–279, Dec. 2018. [CrossRef]
  45. J. O. Lee et al., “Carbohydrate antigen 19-9 plus carcinoembryonic antigen for prognosis in colorectal cancer: An observational study,” Color. Dis., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 272–281, Feb. 2023. [CrossRef]
  46. E. Hidaka et al., “High Serum CA19-9 Concentration Predicts Poor Prognosis in Elderly Patients with Stage IV Colorectal Cancer,” Gastrointest. Tumors, vol. 5, no. 3–4, pp. 117–124, 2018. [CrossRef]
  47. Y.-Q. Ma, Y. Wen, H. Liang, J.-G. Zhong, and P.-P. Pang, “Magnetic resonance imaging-radiomics evaluation of response to chemotherapy for synchronous liver metastasis of colorectal cancer,” World J. Gastroenterol., vol. 27, no. 38, pp. 6465–6475, Oct. 2021. [CrossRef]
  48. W. Zhou et al., “High pretreatment serum CA19-9 level predicts a poor prognosis for patients with stage III colon cancer after curative resection and adjuvant chemotherapy,” J. Cancer, vol. 10, no. 16, pp. 3810–3818, 2019. [CrossRef]
  49. X. Huang, G. Gan, X. Wang, T. Xu, and W. Xie, “The HGF-MET axis coordinates liver cancer metabolism and autophagy for chemotherapeutic resistance,” Autophagy, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1258–1279, Jul. 2019. [CrossRef]
  50. H. Peng, T. Ye, L. Deng, X. Yang, Z. Jiang, and J. Guo, “Sequential Treatment with Activin and Hepatocyte Growth Factor Induces FOXM1 to Promote Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis,” Can. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol., vol. 2022, pp. 1–15, Dec. 2022. [CrossRef]
  51. L. Huang et al., “Matrix completion with side information and its applications in predicting the antigenicity of influenza viruses,” Bioinformatics, vol. 33, no. 20, pp. 3195–3201, Oct. 2017. [CrossRef]
  52. L. Peng et al., “Cell–cell communication inference and analysis in the tumour microenvironments from single-cell transcriptomics: data resources and computational strategies,” Brief. Bioinform., vol. 23, no. 4, Jul. 2022. [CrossRef]
  53. L. Shen, F. Liu, L. Huang, G. Liu, L. Zhou, and L. Peng, “VDA-RWLRLS: An anti-SARS-CoV-2 drug prioritizing framework combining an unbalanced bi-random walk and Laplacian regularized least squares,” Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 140, p. 105119, Jan. 2022. [CrossRef]
  54. G. Li, J. Luo, Q. Xiao, C. Liang, and P. Ding, “Predicting microRNA-disease associations using label propagation based on linear neighborhood similarity,” J. Biomed. Inform., vol. 82, pp. 169–177, Jun. 2018. [CrossRef]
  55. H. Chen, R. Guo, G. Li, W. Zhang, and Z. Zhang, “Comparative analysis of similarity measurements in miRNAs with applications to miRNA-disease association predictions,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 176, Dec. 2020. [CrossRef]
  56. R. C. Lee, R. L. Feinbaum, and V. Ambros, “The C. elegans heterochronic gene lin-4 encodes small RNAs with antisense complementarity to lin-14,” Cell, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 843–854, Dec. 1993. [CrossRef]
  57. L. Wang, K. B. Cho, Y. Li, G. Tao, Z. Xie, and B. Guo, “Long Noncoding RNA (lncRNA)-Mediated Competing Endogenous RNA Networks Provide Novel Potential Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets for Colorectal Cancer,” Int. J. Mol. Sci., vol. 20, no. 22, p. 5758, Nov. 2019. [CrossRef]
  58. T. B. Hansen et al., “Natural RNA circles function as efficient microRNA sponges,” Nature, vol. 495, no. 7441, pp. 384–388, Mar. 2013. [CrossRef]
  59. X.-Y. Zhou et al., “Non-coding RNAS and colorectal cancer liver metastasis,” Mol. Cell. Biochem., vol. 475, no. 1–2, pp. 151–159, Dec. 2020. [CrossRef]
  60. J. Petrik et al., “Circulating Tumor Cells in Colorectal Cancer: Detection Systems and Clinical Utility,” Int. J. Mol. Sci., vol. 23, no. 21, p. 13582, Nov. 2022. [CrossRef]
  61. D. S. Micalizzi, S. Maheswaran, and D. A. Haber, “A conduit to metastasis: circulating tumor cell biology,” Genes Dev., vol. 31, no. 18, pp. 1827–1840, Sep. 2017. [CrossRef]
  62. D. Lin et al., “Circulating tumor cells: biology and clinical significance,” Signal Transduct. Target. Ther., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 404, Nov. 2021. [CrossRef]
  63. Z. Qin, V. A. Ljubimov, C. Zhou, Y. Tong, and J. Liang, “Cell-free circulating tumor DNA in cancer,” Chin. J. Cancer, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 36, Dec. 2016. [CrossRef]
  64. M. H. D. Neumann, S. Bender, T. Krahn, and T. Schlange, “ctDNA and CTCs in Liquid Biopsy – Current Status and Where We Need to Progress,” Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J., vol. 16, pp. 190–195, 2018. [CrossRef]
  65. W. Schmiegel et al., “Blood-based detection of RAS mutations to guide anti- EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer patients: concordance of results from circulating tumor DNA and tissue-based RAS testing,” Mol. Oncol., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 208–219, Feb. 2017. [CrossRef]
  66. M. Murtaza et al., “Non-invasive analysis of acquired resistance to cancer therapy by sequencing of plasma DNA,” Nature, vol. 497, no. 7447, pp. 108–112, May 2013. [CrossRef]
  67. R. P. Jones, S. A. Pugh, J. Graham, J. N. Primrose, and J. Barriuso, “Circulating tumour DNA as a biomarker in resectable and irresectable stage IV colorectal cancer; a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Eur. J. Cancer, vol. 144, pp. 368–381, Feb. 2021. [CrossRef]
  68. J. B. Bachet et al., “RAS mutation analysis in circulating tumor DNA from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the AGEO RASANC prospective multicenter study,” Ann. Oncol., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1211–1219, May 2018. [CrossRef]
  69. F.-C. Bidard et al., “Circulating Tumor Cells and Circulating Tumor DNA Detection in Potentially Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Ancillary Study to the Unicancer Prodige-14 Trial,” Cells, vol. 8, no. 6, p. 516, May 2019. [CrossRef]
  70. F. Loupakis et al., “Detection of Molecular Residual Disease Using Personalized Circulating Tumor DNA Assay in Patients With Colorectal Cancer Undergoing Resection of Metastases,” JCO Precis. Oncol., no. 5, pp. 1166–1177, Nov. 2021. [CrossRef]
  71. C. Antoniotti, F. Pietrantonio, S. Corallo, F. De Braud, A. Falcone, and C. Cremolini, “Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Colorectal Cancer: From Dream to Reality,” JCO Precis. Oncol., no. 3, pp. 1–14, Dec. 2019. [CrossRef]
  72. C. Alix-Panabières and K. Pantel, “Circulating Tumor Cells: Liquid Biopsy of Cancer,” Clin. Chem., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 110–118, Jan. 2013. [CrossRef]
  73. R. Gupta, T. Othman, C. Chen, J. Sandhu, C. Ouyang, and M. Fakih, “Guardant360 Circulating Tumor DNA Assay Is Concordant with FoundationOne Next-Generation Sequencing in Detecting Actionable Driver Mutations in Anti-EGFR Naive Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,” Oncologist, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 235–243, Mar. 2020. [CrossRef]
  74. R. Woodhouse et al., “Clinical and analytical validation of FoundationOne Liquid CDx, a novel 324-Gene cfDNA-based comprehensive genomic profiling assay for cancers of solid tumor origin,” PLoS One, vol. 15, no. 9, p. e0237802, Sep. 2020. [CrossRef]
  75. Z. Vucetic, N. Loayza, S. K. Pedersen, M. Tuck, and L. C. LaPointe, “Clinical performance of methylation-based liquid biopsy test COLVERA after optimization of test interpretation rules.,” J. Clin. Oncol., vol. 39, no. 15_suppl, pp. 3546–3546, May 2021. [CrossRef]
  76. J. García-Foncillas et al., “Incorporating BEAMing technology as a liquid biopsy into clinical practice for the management of colorectal cancer patients: an expert taskforce review,” Ann. Oncol., vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 2943–2949, Dec. 2017. [CrossRef]
  77. P. M. Kasi, “Tumor-Informed Versus Plasma-Only Liquid Biopsy Assay in a Patient With Multiple Primary Malignancies,” JCO Precis. Oncol., no. 6, May 2022. [CrossRef]
  78. G. A. Margonis et al., “KRAS mutational status impacts pathologic response to pre-hepatectomy chemotherapy: a study from the International Genetic Consortium for Liver Metastases,” HPB, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1527–1534, Nov. 2019. [CrossRef]
  79. M. M. Germani et al., “The management of colorectal liver metastases amenable of surgical resection: How to shape treatment strategies according to clinical, radiological, pathological and molecular features,” Cancer Treat. Rev., vol. 106, p. 102382, May 2022. [CrossRef]
  80. Si et al., “Impact of Anatomical Versus Non-anatomical Liver Resection on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma,” Ann. Surg. Oncol., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1841–1850, Jun. 2019. [CrossRef]
  81. G. A. Margonis et al., “KRAS Mutation Status Dictates Optimal Surgical Margin Width in Patients Undergoing Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases,” Ann. Surg. Oncol., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 264–271, Jan. 2017. [CrossRef]
  82. G. A. Margonis et al., “Association of BRAF Mutations With Survival and Recurrence in Surgically Treated Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Liver Cancer,” JAMA Surg., vol. 153, no. 7, p. e180996, Jul. 2018. [CrossRef]
  83. F. Tosi et al., “Effect of KRAS and BRAF Mutations on Survival of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clin. Colorectal Cancer, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. e153–e163, Sep. 2017. [CrossRef]
  84. J. Gagnière et al., “Is Hepatectomy Justified for BRAF Mutant Colorectal Liver Metastases?,” Ann. Surg., vol. 271, no. 1, pp. 147–154, Jan. 2020. [CrossRef]
  85. J.-B. Bachet et al., “BRAF mutation is not associated with an increased risk of recurrence in patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases,” Br. J. Surg., vol. 106, no. 9, pp. 1237–1247, Jul. 2019. [CrossRef]
  86. G. Smith et al., “Mutations in APC, Kirsten-ras, and p53—alternative genetic pathways to colorectal cancer,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 99, no. 14, pp. 9433–9438, Jul. 2002. [CrossRef]
  87. A. Sartore-Bianchi et al., “HER2 Positivity Predicts Unresponsiveness to EGFR-Targeted Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,” Oncologist, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 1395–1402, Oct. 2019. [CrossRef]
  88. S. Siena et al., “Targeting the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) oncogene in colorectal cancer,” Ann. Oncol., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1108–1119, May 2018. [CrossRef]
  89. K. Raghav et al., “Validation of HER2 Amplification as a Predictive Biomarker for Anti–Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Antibody Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,” JCO Precis. Oncol., no. 3, pp. 1–13, Dec. 2019. [CrossRef]
  90. T. Yoshino et al., “Final results of DESTINY-CRC01 investigating trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer,” Nat. Commun., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 3332, Jun. 2023. [CrossRef]
  91. S. Siena et al., “Trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201) in patients with HER2-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (DESTINY-CRC01): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial,” Lancet Oncol., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 779–789, Jun. 2021. [CrossRef]
  92. K. P. S. Raghav et al., “Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) in patients (pts) with HER2-overexpressing/amplified (HER2+) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Primary results from the multicenter, randomized, phase 2 DESTINY-CRC02 study.,” J. Clin. Oncol., vol. 41, no. 16_suppl, pp. 3501–3501, Jun. 2023. [CrossRef]
  93. K. Takaku, M. Oshima, H. Miyoshi, M. Matsui, M. F. Seldin, and M. M. Taketo, “Intestinal Tumorigenesis in Compound Mutant Mice of both Dpc4(Smad4) and Apc Genes,” Cell, vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 645–656, Mar. 1998. [CrossRef]
  94. L. L. Ritterhouse et al., “Loss of SMAD4 protein expression in gastrointestinal and extra-gastrointestinal carcinomas,” Histopathology, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 546–551, Oct. 2019. [CrossRef]
  95. J.-L. Boulay et al., “SMAD4 is a predictive marker for 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer,” Br. J. Cancer, vol. 87, no. 6, pp. 630–634, Sep. 2002. [CrossRef]
  96. Z. Lin, L. Zhang, J. Zhou, and J. Zheng, “Silencing Smad4 attenuates sensitivity of colorectal cancer cells to cetuximab by promoting epithelial-mesenchymal transition,” Mol. Med. Rep., Aug. 2019. [CrossRef]
  97. H. Oyanagi et al., “SMAD 4 alteration associates with invasive-front pathological markers and poor prognosis in colorectal cancer,” Histopathology, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 873–882, May 2019. [CrossRef]
  98. Y. Kawaguchi et al., “Mutation Status of RAS, TP53, and SMAD4 is Superior to Mutation Status of RAS Alone for Predicting Prognosis after Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases,” Clin. Cancer Res., vol. 25, no. 19, pp. 5843–5851, Oct. 2019. [CrossRef]
  99. M. Dijkstra et al., “Primary Tumor Sidedness, RAS and BRAF Mutations and MSI Status as Prognostic Factors in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases Treated with Surgery and Thermal Ablation: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE),” Biomedicines, vol. 9, no. 8, p. 962, Aug. 2021. [CrossRef]
  100. C. G. Kim et al., “Effects of microsatellite instability on recurrence patterns and outcomes in colorectal cancers,” Br. J. Cancer, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 25–33, Jun. 2016. [CrossRef]
  101. K. Ludford et al., “Pathological Tumor Response Following Immune Checkpoint Blockade for Deficient Mismatch Repair Advanced Colorectal Cancer,” JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst., vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 208–211, Feb. 2021. [CrossRef]
  102. H. Nishimura et al., “Autoimmune Dilated Cardiomyopathy in PD-1 Receptor-Deficient Mice,” Science (80-. )., vol. 291, no. 5502, pp. 319–322, Jan. 2001. [CrossRef]
  103. M. W. Rosenbaum, J. R. Bledsoe, V. Morales-Oyarvide, T. G. Huynh, and M. Mino-Kenudson, “PD-L1 expression in colorectal cancer is associated with microsatellite instability, BRAF mutation, medullary morphology and cytotoxic tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes,” Mod. Pathol., vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1104–1112, Sep. 2016. [CrossRef]
  104. D. T. Le et al., “PD-1 Blockade in Tumors with Mismatch-Repair Deficiency,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 372, no. 26, pp. 2509–2520, Jun. 2015. [CrossRef]
  105. M. J. Overman et al., “Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study,” Lancet Oncol., vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1182–1191, Sep. 2017. [CrossRef]
  106. A. Marabelle et al., “Association of tumour mutational burden with outcomes in patients with select advanced solid tumours treated with pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-158,” Ann. Oncol., vol. 30, pp. v477–v478, Oct. 2019. [CrossRef]
  107. A. Marabelle et al., “Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Noncolorectal High Microsatellite Instability/Mismatch Repair–Deficient Cancer: Results From the Phase II KEYNOTE-158 Study,” J. Clin. Oncol., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Jan. 2020. [CrossRef]
  108. T. Sekiya et al., “Identification of BMP and Activin Membrane-bound Inhibitor (BAMBI), an Inhibitor of Transforming Growth Factor-β Signaling, as a Target of the β-Catenin Pathway in Colorectal Tumor Cells,” J. Biol. Chem., vol. 279, no. 8, pp. 6840–6846, Feb. 2004. [CrossRef]
  109. “Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer,” Nature, vol. 487, no. 7407, pp. 330–337, Jul. 2012. [CrossRef]
  110. E. S. Tan et al., “Prognostic and Predictive Value of PIK3CA Mutations in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,” Target. Oncol., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 483–492, Jul. 2022. [CrossRef]
  111. S. Melloul et al., “Loss of SMARCB1 expression in colon carcinoma,” Cancer Biomarkers, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 399–406, Mar. 2020. [CrossRef]
  112. S. Sharif and M. J. O’Connell, “Gene Signatures in Stage II Colon Cancer: A Clinical Review,” Curr. Colorectal Cancer Rep., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 225–231, Sep. 2012. [CrossRef]
  113. E. Oki, K. Ando, H. Taniguchi, T. Yoshino, and M. Mori, “Sustainable Clinical Development of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer,” Ann. Gastroenterol. Surg., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37–45, Jan. 2022. [CrossRef]
  114. J. Guinney et al., “The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer,” Nat. Med., vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1350–1356, Nov. 2015. [CrossRef]
  115. L. K. Mattison, R. Soong, and R. B. Diasio, “Implications of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase on 5-fluorouracil pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics,” Pharmacogenomics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 485–492, Jul. 2002. [CrossRef]
  116. Y. Okano, H. Kuramochi, G. Nakajima, S. Katagiri, and M. Yamamoto, “Elevated levels of mRNAs encoding dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and thymidylate synthase are associated with improved survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with S-1,” Oncol. Lett., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 930–936, Jul. 2017. [CrossRef]
  117. K. Eccles et al., “Prospective DPYD testing in colorectal cancer patients in a realworld UK population,” Ann. Oncol., vol. 29, p. viii187, Oct. 2018. [CrossRef]
  118. J. S. Graham et al., “Prospective DPYD testing and dose adjustment in colorectal cancer patients prior to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy: Experience in a regional cancer center.,” J. Clin. Oncol., vol. 38, no. 4_suppl, pp. 93–93, Feb. 2020. [CrossRef]
  119. K. Van der Jeught, H.-C. Xu, Y.-J. Li, X.-B. Lu, and G. Ji, “Drug resistance and new therapies in colorectal cancer,” World J. Gastroenterol., vol. 24, no. 34, pp. 3834–3848, Sep. 2018. [CrossRef]
  120. Service, N.H. Clinical Commissioning Urgent Policy Statement: Pharmacogenomic Testing for DPYD Polymorphisms with Fluoropyrimidine Therapies. https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/clinical-commissioning-urgent-policy-statement-pharmacogenomic-testing-for-dpyd-polymorphisms-with-fluoropyrimidine-therapies/.
  121. M.-A. Loriot et al., “Dépistage du déficit en dihydropyrimidine déshydrogénase (DPD) et sécurisation des chimiothérapies à base de fluoropyrimidines: mise au point et recommandations nationales du GPCO-Unicancer et du RNPGx,” Bull. Cancer, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 397–407, Apr. 2018. [CrossRef]
  122. “U.S. Food and Drug Administration Table of Pharmacogenetic Associations.” https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/precision-medicine/table-pharmacogenetic-associations.
  123. A.-H. M. V. A. Benson A.B., III, “NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Colon Cancer. Version 4. 2020.,” [Online]. Available: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf.
  124. A. Cervantes et al., “Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up,” Ann. Oncol., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 10–32, Jan. 2023. [CrossRef]
  125. Y. Fong, J. Fortner, R. L. Sun, M. F. Brennan, and L. H. Blumgart, “Clinical Score for Predicting Recurrence After Hepatic Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,” Ann. Surg., vol. 230, no. 3, p. 309, Sep. 1999. [CrossRef]
  126. K. W. Brudvik et al., “RAS Mutation Clinical Risk Score to Predict Survival After Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases,” Ann. Surg., vol. 269, no. 1, pp. 120–126, Jan. 2019. [CrossRef]
  127. G. A. Margonis et al., “Genetic And Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score for patients with colorectal liver metastases,” Br. J. Surg., vol. 105, no. 9, pp. 1210–1220, Jul. 2018. [CrossRef]
  128. K. Sasaki et al., “Performance of two prognostic scores that incorporate genetic information to predict long-term outcomes following resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases: An external validation of the MD Anderson and JHH-MSK scores,” J. Hepatobiliary. Pancreat. Sci., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 581–592, Jul. 2021. [CrossRef]
  129. C. Kamphues et al., “The optimal cut-off values for tumor size, number of lesions, and CEA levels in patients with surgically treated colorectal cancer liver metastases: An international, multi-institutional study,” J. Surg. Oncol., vol. 123, no. 4, pp. 939–948, Mar. 2021. [CrossRef]
  130. L. K. Symonds and S. A. Cohen, “Use of perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver,” Gastroenterol. Rep., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 301–311, Oct. 2019. [CrossRef]
  131. K.-M. Chan et al., “Prognostic significance of the number of tumors and aggressive surgical approach in colorectal cancer hepatic metastasis,” World J. Surg. Oncol., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 155. 2014. [CrossRef]
  132. B. Nordlinger et al., “Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC Intergroup trial 40983): a randomised controlled trial,” Lancet, vol. 371, no. 9617, pp. 1007–1016, Mar. 2008. [CrossRef]
  133. B. Nordlinger et al., “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., vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1208–1215, Nov. 2013. [CrossRef]
  134. C. Behrenbruch et al., “Survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery first for resectable colorectal liver metastases: a cohort study,” ANZ J. Surg., vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 1196–1202, Jun. 2021. [CrossRef]
  135. R. Vera et al., “Multidisciplinary management of liver metastases in patients with colorectal cancer: a consensus of SEOM, AEC, SEOR, SERVEI, and SEMNIM,” Clin. Transl. Oncol., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 647–662, May 2020. [CrossRef]
  136. N. Ayez et al., “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, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 180, Dec. 2015. [CrossRef]
  137. W. A. Messersmith, “NCCN Guidelines Updates: Management of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.,” J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw., vol. 17, no. 5.5, pp. 599–601, May 2019. [CrossRef]
  138. R. A. Snyder, S. Hao, W. Irish, E. E. Zervos, J. E. Tuttle-Newhall, and A. A. Parikh, “Thirty-Day Morbidity after Simultaneous Resection of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Liver Metastasis: American College of Surgeons NSQIP Analysis,” J. Am. Coll. Surg., vol. 230, no. 4, pp. 617-627e9, Apr. 2020. [CrossRef]
  139. D. I. Tsilimigras et al., “Trends and outcomes of simultaneous versus staged resection of synchronous colorectal cancer and colorectal liver metastases,” Surgery, vol. 170, no. 1, pp. 160–166, Jul. 2021. [CrossRef]
  140. S. Wang, L. Song, J. Tang, W. Sun, and Z. Li, “Safety and long-term prognosis of simultaneous versus staged resection in synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Eur. J. Med. Res., vol. 27, no. 1, p. 297, Dec. 2022. [CrossRef]
  141. T. L. Hedrick and V. M. Zaydfudim, “Management of Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Metastases,” Surg. Oncol. Clin. N. Am., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 265–278, Apr. 2022. [CrossRef]
  142. K. Siriwardena et al., “Multisocietal European consensus on the terminology, diagnosis, and management of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases: an E-AHPBA consensus in partnership with ESSO, ESCP, ESGAR, and CIRSE,” Br. J. Surg., vol. 110, no. 9, pp. 1161–1170, Aug. 2023. [CrossRef]
  143. F. Giuliante et al., “Liver-First Approach for Synchronous Colorectal Metastases: Analysis of 7360 Patients from the LiverMetSurvey Registry,” Ann. Surg. Oncol., vol. 28, no. 13, pp. 8198–8208, Dec. 2021. [CrossRef]
  144. J. L. Gumiero et al., “Timing of resection of synchronous colorectal liver metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J. Surg. Oncol., vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 175–188, Jul. 2022. [CrossRef]
  145. J. P. Sijberden et al., “Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: what determines the risk of unfavorable outcomes? An international multicenter retrospective cohort study,” Int. J. Surg., vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 244–254, Mar. 2023. [CrossRef]
  146. K. Boudjema et al., “Simultaneous Versus Delayed Resection for Initially Resectable Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases,” Ann. Surg., vol. 273, no. 1, pp. 49–56, Jan. 2021. [CrossRef]
  147. T. M. Diehl and D. E. Abbott, “Molecular Determinants and Other Factors to Guide Selection of Patients for Hepatic Resection of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,” Curr. Treat. Options Oncol., vol. 22, no. 9, p. 82, Sep. 2021. [CrossRef]
  148. M. C. Riesco-Martinez, A. Modrego, P. Espinosa-Olarte, A. La Salvia, and R. Garcia-Carbonero, “Perioperative Chemotherapy for Liver Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer: Lessons Learned and Future Perspectives,” Curr. Treat. Options Oncol., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1320–1337, Sep. 2022. [CrossRef]
  149. R. Glynne-Jones et al., “Rectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up,” Ann. Oncol., vol. 28, pp. iv22–iv40, Jul. 2017. [CrossRef]
  150. Y. Wang, N. Wen, X. Xiong, J. Lu, B. Li, and N. Cheng, “Timing of surgery in patients with synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a propensity score analysis,” World J. Surg. Oncol., vol. 21, no. 1, p. 276, Sep. 2023. [CrossRef]
  151. T. L. Sutton, A. Schlitt, S. K. Gardiner, N. Johnson, and J. R. Garreau, “Time to surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer impacts residual cancer burden, recurrence, and survival,” J. Surg. Oncol., vol. 122, no. 8, pp. 1761–1769, Dec. 2020. [CrossRef]
  152. C. X. Ma et al., “NeoPalAna: Neoadjuvant Palbociclib, a Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibitor, and Anastrozole for Clinical Stage 2 or 3 Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer,” Clin. Cancer Res., vol. 23, no. 15, pp. 4055–4065, Aug. 2017. [CrossRef]
  153. J. Datta et al., “Coaltered Ras/B-raf and TP53 Is Associated with Extremes of Survivorship and Distinct Patterns of Metastasis in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,” Clin. Cancer Res., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1077–1085, Mar. 2020. [CrossRef]
  154. J. S. Gold et al., “Increased Use of Parenchymal-Sparing Surgery for Bilateral Liver Metastases From Colorectal Cancer Is Associated With Improved Mortality Without Change in Oncologic Outcome,” Ann. Surg., vol. 247, no. 1, pp. 109–117, Jan. 2008. [CrossRef]
  155. R. Adam, A. Laurent, D. Azoulay, D. Castaing, and H. Bismuth, “Two-stage hepatectomy: A planned strategy to treat irresectable liver tumors.,” Ann. Surg., vol. 232, no. 6, pp. 777–85, Dec. 2000. [CrossRef]
  156. Y. P. Le Treut et al., “First Long-term Oncologic Results of the ALPPS Procedure in a Large Cohort of Patients With Colorectal Liver Metastases,” Ann. Surg., vol. 272, no. 5, pp. 793–800, Nov. 2020. [CrossRef]
  157. Y. P. Le Treut et al., “Liver Transplantation for Neuroendocrine Tumors in Europe—Results and Trends in Patient Selection,” Ann. Surg., vol. 257, no. 5, pp. 807–815, May 2013. [CrossRef]
  158. A. Gorgen, H. Muaddi, W. Zhang, I. McGilvray, S. Gallinger, and G. Sapisochin, “The New Era of Transplant Oncology: Liver Transplantation for Nonresectable Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases,” Can. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol., vol. 2018, pp. 1–7, 2018. [CrossRef]
  159. C. Toso et al., “Liver transplantation for colorectal liver metastasis: Survival without recurrence can be achieved,” Liver Transplant., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1073–1076, Aug. 2017. [CrossRef]
  160. M. Hagness et al., “Liver Transplantation for Nonresectable Liver Metastases From Colorectal Cancer,” Ann. Surg., vol. 257, no. 5, pp. 800–806, May 2013. [CrossRef]
  161. S. Dueland et al., “Chemotherapy or Liver Transplantation for Nonresectable Liver Metastases From Colorectal Cancer?,” Ann. Surg., vol. 261, no. 5, pp. 956–960, May 2015. [CrossRef]
  162. S. Dueland et al., “Survival Following Liver Transplantation for Patients With Nonresectable Liver-only Colorectal Metastases,” Ann. Surg., vol. 271, no. 2, pp. 212–218, Feb. 2020. [CrossRef]
  163. M. Tabbal, A. M. Alkhalifa, A. S. AlQattan, M. AlJawad, M. A. Tawfeeq, and M. S. Al Qahtani, “Salvage liver transplantation after resection of colorectal cancer liver metastasis with favorable outcomes: a case report and review of the literature,” BMC Gastroenterol., vol. 21, no. 1, p. 191, Dec. 2021. [CrossRef]
  164. C. M. Lebeck Lee et al., “A contemporary systematic review on liver transplantation for unresectable liver metastases of colorectal cancer,” Cancer, vol. 128, no. 12, pp. 2243–2257, Jun. 2022. [CrossRef]
  165. C. Sposito et al., “Improving Outcome of Selected Patients With Non-Resectable Hepatic Metastases From Colorectal Cancer With Liver Transplantation: A Prospective Parallel Trial (COLT trial),” Clin. Colorectal Cancer, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 250–255, Jun. 2023. [CrossRef]
  166. F. Rauchfuß, S. Nadalin, A. Königsrainer, and U. Settmacher, “Living donor liver transplantation with two-stage hepatectomy for patients with isolated, irresectable colorectal liver—the LIVER-T(W)O-HEAL study,” World J. Surg. Oncol., vol. 17, no. 1, p. 11, Dec. 2019. [CrossRef]
  167. P.-D. Line, M. Hagness, A. E. Berstad, A. Foss, and S. Dueland, “A Novel Concept for Partial Liver Transplantation in Nonresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases,” Ann. Surg., vol. 262, no. 1, pp. e5–e9, Jul. 2015. [CrossRef]
  168. L. Rajendran et al., “Toronto Management of Initially Unresectable Liver Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer in a Living Donor Liver Transplant Program,” J. Am. Coll. Surg., vol. 237, no. 2, pp. 231–242, Aug. 2023. [CrossRef]
  169. W. Shady et al., “Percutaneous Microwave versus Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Ablation with Clear Margins (A0) Provides the Best Local Tumor Control,” J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 268-275.e1, Feb. 2018. [CrossRef]
  170. M. R. Meijerink et al., “Radiofrequency and Microwave Ablation Compared to Systemic Chemotherapy and to Partial Hepatectomy in the Treatment of Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol., vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1189–1204, Aug. 2018. [CrossRef]
  171. K. M. Eltawil et al., “Patterns of recurrence following selective intraoperative radiofrequency ablation as an adjunct to hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases,” J. Surg. Oncol., vol. 110, no. 6, pp. 734–738, Nov. 2014. [CrossRef]
  172. G. Yang et al., “The prognosis of radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for patients with colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 22 studies,” Int. J. Surg., vol. 87, p. 105896, Mar. 2021. [CrossRef]
  173. M. Di Martino, G. Rompianesi, I. Mora-Guzmán, E. Martín-Pérez, R. Montalti, and R. I. Troisi, “Systematic review and meta-analysis of local ablative therapies for resectable colorectal liver metastases,” Eur. J. Surg. Oncol., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 772–781, May 2020. [CrossRef]
  174. P. Gavriilidis, K. J. Roberts, N. De’Angelis, L. Aldrighetti, and R. P. Sutcliffe, “Recurrence and survival following microwave, radiofrequency ablation, and hepatic resection of colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and network meta-analysis,” Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Dis. Int., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 307–314, Aug. 2021. [CrossRef]
  175. R. S. Puijk et al., “Colorectal liver metastases: surgery versus thermal ablation (COLLISION) – a phase III single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial,” BMC Cancer, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 821, Dec. 2018. [CrossRef]
  176. E. Siperstein, E. Berber, N. Ballem, and R. T. Parikh, “Survival After Radiofrequency Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases,” Ann. Surg., vol. 246, no. 4, pp. 559–567, Oct. 2007. [CrossRef]
  177. T. TAGO et al., “Significance of Radiofrequency Ablation for Unresectable Colorectal Cancer With Liver Metastases,” Anticancer Res., vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 5539–5547, Nov. 2021. [CrossRef]
  178. M. E. Clark and R. R. Smith, “Liver-directed therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer.,” J. Gastrointest. Oncol., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 374–87, Oct. 2014. [CrossRef]
  179. D. R. Jeyarajah et al., “Role of yttrium-90 selective internal radiation therapy in the treatment of liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer: an evidence-based expert consensus algorithm.,” J. Gastrointest. Oncol., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 443–460, Apr. 2020. [CrossRef]
  180. B. D. Goodman, E. M. Mannina, S. K. Althouse, M. A. Maluccio, and H. R. Cárdenes, “Long-term safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatic oligometastases.,” Pract. Radiat. Oncol., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 86–95, 2016. [CrossRef]
  181. C. Rubio et al., “Image guided SBRT for multiple liver metastases with ExacTrac® Adaptive Gating.,” Reports Pract. Oncol. Radiother. J. Gt. Cancer Cent. Pozn. Polish Soc. Radiat. Oncol., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 150–157. 2017. [CrossRef]
  182. P. M. H. Nierop et al., “Histopathological growth patterns and positive margins after resection of colorectal liver metastases,” HPB, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 911–919, Jun. 2020. [CrossRef]
  183. G. G. Van den Eynden, N. C. Bird, A. W. Majeed, S. Van Laere, L. Y. Dirix, and P. B. Vermeulen, “The histological growth pattern of colorectal cancer liver metastases has prognostic value,” Clin. Exp. Metastasis, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 541–549, Aug. 2012. [CrossRef]
  184. B. Galjart et al., “Angiogenic desmoplastic histopathological growth pattern as a prognostic marker of good outcome in patients with colorectal liver metastases,” Angiogenesis, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 355–368, May 2019. [CrossRef]
  185. R. L. Eefsen et al., “Growth pattern of colorectal liver metastasis as a marker of recurrence risk,” Clin. Exp. Metastasis, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 369–381, Apr. 2015. [CrossRef]
  186. R. L. Eefsen et al., “Inflammation and uPAR-Expression in Colorectal Liver Metastases in Relation to Growth Pattern and Neo-adjuvant Therapy,” Cancer Microenviron., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 93–100, Aug. 2015. [CrossRef]
  187. F. Pagès et al., “International validation of the consensus Immunoscore for the classification of colon cancer: a prognostic and accuracy study,” Lancet, vol. 391, no. 10135, pp. 2128–2139, May 2018. [CrossRef]
  188. D. J. Höppener et al., “Enrichment of the tumour immune microenvironment in patients with desmoplastic colorectal liver metastasis,” Br. J. Cancer, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 196–206, Jul. 2020. [CrossRef]
  189. P. M. H. Nierop et al., “Salvage treatment for recurrences after first resection of colorectal liver metastases: the impact of histopathological growth patterns,” Clin. Exp. Metastasis, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 109–118, Apr. 2019. [CrossRef]
  190. G. Garcia-Vicién et al., “Spatial Immunology in Liver Metastases from Colorectal Carcinoma according to the Histologic Growth Pattern,” Cancers (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 3, p. 689, Jan. 2022. [CrossRef]
  191. J. Lazarus et al., “Mathematical Modeling of the Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Microenvironment Defines the Importance of Cytotoxic Lymphocyte Infiltration and Presence of PD-L1 on Antigen Presenting Cells,” Ann. Surg. Oncol., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 2821–2830, Sep. 2019. [CrossRef]
  192. A. C. P. Diederichsen, J. v. B. Hjelmborg, P. B. Christensen, J. Zeuthen, and C. Fenger, “Prognostic value of the CD4+/CD8+ ratio of tumour infiltrating lymphocytes in colorectal cancer and HLA-DR expression on tumour cells,” Cancer Immunol. Immunother., vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 423–428, Jul. 2003. [CrossRef]
  193. J. Hof et al., “B Cells as Prognostic Biomarker After Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases,” Front. Oncol., vol. 10, Mar. 2020. [CrossRef]
  194. G. Sampaio-Ribeiro et al., “Extensive Phenotypic Characterization of T Cells Infiltrating Liver Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer: A Potential Role in Precision Medicine,” Cancers (Basel)., vol. 14, no. 24, p. 6069, Dec. 2022. [CrossRef]
  195. G. Sampaio-Ribeiro et al., “Innate Immune Cells in the Tumor Microenvironment of Liver Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer: Contribution to a Comprehensive Therapy,” Cancers (Basel)., vol. 15, no. 12, p. 3222, Jun. 2023. [CrossRef]
  196. F. Makowiec, P. Bronsert, A. Klock, U. T. Hopt, and H. P. Neeff, “Prognostic influence of hepatic margin after resection of colorectal liver metastasis: role of modern preoperative chemotherapy,” Int. J. Colorectal Dis., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 71–78, Jan. 2018. [CrossRef]
  197. A. Andreou et al., “Margin Status Remains an Important Determinant of Survival After Surgical Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases in the Era of Modern Chemotherapy,” Ann. Surg., vol. 257, no. 6, pp. 1079–1088, Jun. 2013. [CrossRef]
  198. L. Viganò et al., “R1 Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: a Survey Questioning Surgeons about Its Incidence, Clinical Impact, and Management,” J. Gastrointest. Surg., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1752–1763, Oct. 2018. [CrossRef]
  199. L. Viganò et al., “Is Tumor Detachment from Vascular Structures Equivalent to R0 Resection in Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases? An Observational Cohort,” Ann. Surg. Oncol., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1352–1360, Apr. 2016. [CrossRef]
  200. D. Symeonidis et al., “Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Is an R1 Hepatic Resection Accepted?,” Clin. Pract., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1102–1110, Dec. 2022. [CrossRef]
  201. R. J. de Haas, D. A. Wicherts, E. Flores, D. Azoulay, D. Castaing, and R. Adam, “R1 Resection by Necessity for Colorectal Liver Metastases,” Ann. Surg., vol. 248, no. 4, pp. 626–637, Oct. 2008. [CrossRef]
  202. G. Portier et al., “Multicenter Randomized Trial of Adjuvant Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Compared With Surgery Alone After Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases: FFCD ACHBTH AURC 9002 Trial,” J. Clin. Oncol., vol. 24, no. 31, pp. 4976–4982, Nov. 2006. [CrossRef]
  203. J. Primrose et al., “Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis: the New EPOC randomised controlled trial,” Lancet Oncol., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 601–611, May 2014. [CrossRef]
  204. B. Groot Koerkamp et al., “Perioperative Hepatic Arterial Infusion Pump Chemotherapy Is Associated With Longer Survival After Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Propensity Score Analysis,” J. Clin. Oncol., vol. 35, no. 17, pp. 1938–1944, Jun. 2017. [CrossRef]
  205. N. Kemeny et al., “Hepatic Arterial Infusion of Chemotherapy after Resection of Hepatic Metastases from Colorectal Cancer,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 341, no. 27, pp. 2039–2048, Dec. 1999. [CrossRef]
  206. N. J. Lygidakis et al., “Metastatic liver disease of colorectal origin: the value of locoregional immunochemotherapy combined with systemic chemotherapy following liver resection. Results of a prospective randomized study.,” Hepatogastroenterology., vol. 48, no. 42, pp. 1685–91, 2001, [Online]. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11813601.
  207. M. Lorenz et al., “Randomized Trial of Surgery Versus Surgery Followed by Adjuvant Hepatic Arterial Infusion With 5-Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid for Liver Metastases of Colorectal Cancer,” Ann. Surg., vol. 228, no. 6, pp. 756–762, Dec. 1998. [CrossRef]
  208. F. E. Buisman et al., “Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy and resection versus resection alone in patients with low-risk resectable colorectal liver metastases – the multicenter randomized controlled PUMP trial,” BMC Cancer, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 327, Dec. 2019. [CrossRef]
  209. D. Goéré et al., “Postoperative hepatic arterial chemotherapy in high-risk patients as adjuvant treatment after resection of colorectal liver metastases - a randomized phase II/III trial – PACHA-01 (NCT02494973),” BMC Cancer, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 787, Dec. 2018. [CrossRef]
  210. L. C. Connell and N. E. Kemeny, “Intraarterial Chemotherapy for Liver Metastases,” Surg. Oncol. Clin. N. Am., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 143–158, Jan. 2021. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated