Next Article in Journal
Unlocking Drug Resistance in Multiple Myeloma: Adipocytes as Modulators of Treatment Response
Next Article in Special Issue
Computational Modeling of Thermal Ablation Zones in the Liver: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Potential Predictive Biomarkers of Systemic Drug Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Anticipated Usefulness in Clinical Practice
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/cancers15174346
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Efficacy of Thermal Ablation for Small-Size (0–3 cm) versus Intermediate-Size (3–5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE)

by
Madelon Dijkstra
1,†,
Susan van der Lei
1,*,†,
Robbert S. Puijk
1,
Hannah H. Schulz
1,
Danielle J. W. Vos
1,
Florentine E. F. Timmer
1,
Hester J. Scheffer
1,2,
Tineke E. Buffart
3,
M. Petrousjka van den Tol
4,
Birgit I. Lissenberg-Witte
5,
Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg
6,
Kathelijn S. Versteeg
3 and
Martijn R. Meijerink
1
1
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, 1815 JD Alkmaar, The Netherlands
3
Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4
Department of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, 8934 AD Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
5
Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
6
Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cancers 2023, 15(17), 4346; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15174346
Submission received: 2 August 2023 / Revised: 23 August 2023 / Accepted: 28 August 2023 / Published: 31 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Thermal Ablation in the Management for Colorectal Liver Metastases)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Thermal ablation is widely recognized as the standard of care for small-size (≤3 cm) colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) that are difficult to resect. The purpose of this comparative series was to analyze outcomes for intermediate-size (3.1–5 cm) versus small-size CRLM. In total, 280 patients undergoing 347 procedures between December 2000 and November 2021 were included. No significant difference between patients with small- versus intermediate-size CRLM was found in a comparison of overall survival. Per-tumor analysis showed that local control (LC) was superior in the small-size group. Nevertheless, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year LC for intermediate-size CRLM was still 93.9%, 85.4%, and 81.5%, and technical efficacy improved over time. In conclusion, thermal ablation for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM is safe and induces long-term local control in the vast majority of tumors.

Abstract

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

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common form of cancer in the world. CRC has an incidence of almost 1.9 million patients per year and was responsible for 9.4% of all cancer related mortality in 2020 [1]. A leading cause of death in CRC patient is related to the development of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), which occur in roughly 50% of all CRC patients [2,3,4,5]. The presence of CRLM is a lethal condition when untreated, with 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of 0–3% [6,7,8]. Systemic therapy alone improves 5-year OS to approximately 11% [6,7,8,9]. With 5-year OS rates of 40–55% for upfront resectable disease and approximately 33% for patients downstaged with systemic therapy, partial hepatectomy remains the current standard of care to treat superficially located and resectable CRLM; however, only 20–30% of patients are considered eligible [3,4,5,10,11,12,13,14,15].
Several radical intent thermal and non-thermal ablative therapies have gradually gained acceptance in the international guidelines to treat unresectable CRLM [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Unresectable disease is herein defined as inability to obtain R0 margins, inability to spare sufficient future liver remnant volume and function, reduced general health status and/or major cardiopulmonary comorbidities, or presumed extensive adhesions caused by previous abdominal surgery [24]. The most utilized and researched thermal ablative energies are radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), whereas evidence for non-thermal ablative methods such as irreversible electroporation (IRE) and stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) ispiling.
Increased tumor sizes (>3 cm) are associated with exponentially reduced technical efficacy and shorter local tumor progression (LTP)-free survival [25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by van Nieuwenhuizen et al. compared safety and efficacy of thermal ablation, IRE, and SABR for intermediate-size CRLM (3–5 cm) [32]. Per-patient local control ranged 22–89% (in eight series) following thermal ablation, and the results improved over time. Nonetheless, thermal ablation for unresectable intermediate-size tumors is currently still outside most of the international guidelines.
The suboptimal local efficacy emphasizes the necessity to further validate thermal ablation for intermediate-size CRLM. The aim of this Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE)-based study was to analyze efficacy of thermal ablation for small-size (0–3 cm) versus intermediate-size (3–5 cm) CRLM.

2. Materials and Methods

This single-center study was conducted at the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, the Netherlands, a tertiary referral medical center for gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary cancer. The prospectively maintained AmCORE database was used for data extraction, and data reporting is in accordance with the ‘Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology’ (STROBE) guideline [33]. The affiliated Institutional Review Board granted permission for the AmCORE database (METc 2021.0121).

2.1. Patient Selection and Data Collection

Per-patient and per-tumor data of patients undergoing thermal ablation for small-size (0–3 cm) and intermediate-size (3–5 cm) CRLM were identified and collected from the database, and were analyzed conformal to the SIO-DATECAN consensus document [34].
Patients with at least 1 tumor > 3 cm and ≤5 cm were included in the intermediate-size (3–5 cm) group, regardless of the concomitant presence of additional small-size CRLM. Patients with merely ablations for smaller-size tumors were included in the small-size (0–3 cm) group. If additional information was needed, recollecting of data was executed by retrospectively searching the hospital’s electronic patient database. Patients receiving thermal ablation alone for ≤5 cm CRLM were included. Patients receiving concomitant surgical resection, SABR, or IRE, and patients in whom follow-up was too short or insufficient, were excluded. If patients received multiple ablation sessions, only the initial procedure and tumors ablated in that specific session were taken into account regarding per-patient survival outcomes.

2.2. Thermal Ablation Procedure

All patients with CRLM potentially suitable for local treatment were discussed by a multidisciplinary tumor board, attended by (interventional) radiologists, hepatopancreaticobiliary and/or oncological surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, nuclear medicine physicians, gastroenterologists, and pathologists. Imaging included contrast enhanced computed tomography (ceCT), contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (ceMRI), and [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)—CT scans, and it was assessed using the RECIST criteria [35].
Two experienced (defined as having performed and/or supervised > 100 procedures) interventional radiologists performed and/or supervised the ablations, and the treatment protocols were in accordance with the instructions for use as provided by the manufacturer and the CIRSE quality improvement guidelines [36]. Conformal to the CIRSE standards of practice on thermal ablation of liver tumors, the intended minimum tumor free ablation margin was >1 cm and the minimum realized tumor-free ablation margin to claim technical success was 5 mm [37,38]. Ablation zone margins were calculated with confirmation software with rigid 3D image-registration (Syngo Fusion, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) directly after the ablation. A CT-guided percutaneous approach was preferred; laparoscopic and open procedures were reserved for cases where critical structures, such as the intestines, could not be distanced using pneumo- or hydrodissection. The RF3000 generator with expandable LeVeen electrodes (RFA; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA), the RITA system with compatible expandable electrodes (RFA; AngioDynamics BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), the Evident system (MWA; Medtronic-Covidien, Minneapolis, MN, USA), the Emprint system (MWA; Medtronic-Covidien, Minneapolis, MN, USA), or the Solero (MWA; AngioDynamics BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) generators with compatible antennas were used for nearly all thermal ablation procedures.
In accordance with national guidelines, the use of (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy was not routine [39]. Induction systemic therapy for downsizing to reduce procedural risk and neoadjuvant systemic therapy for patients with potentially worse tumor biology (multiple intrahepatic recurrences < 6 months) were excepted. Potentially insufficient ablation margins were treated with overlapping ablations of residual tumor tissue.

2.3. Follow-Up

A ceCT scan was performed <6 weeks after thermal ablation when the risk for residual disease was considered high. As recommended by national guidelines, 18F-FDG-PET CT scans were performed every 3–4 months in the first year, every 6 months in the second and third year, and every 12 months in the fourth and fifth year following thermal ablation [39]. LTP was described as a solid and unequivocally enlarging mass or as focal 18F-FDG PET avidity at the surface of the ablated tumor. Additional ceMRI or image-guided biopsies were performed in case of uncertainty.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Baseline characteristics concerning per-patient and per-tumor data were compared between the two groups: small-size versus intermediate-size. Categorical characteristics were described as percentages of patients and compared using the Pearson chi-square test, except for dichotomous characteristics, where the Fisher’s exact test was used. Continuous characteristics were described as mean with standard deviation (SD) or median with interquartile range (IQR), and compared using the independent t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test. Complications were presented using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 5.0 and analyzed using the chi-square test. Length of hospital stay was analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Complications and length of hospital stay were both assessed per procedure.
Primary endpoint LC (per tumor, allowing re-treatments) and secondary endpoints LTPFS (per tumor) and OS (per patient, from first local treatment), all defined as time-to-event from thermal ablation, were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves with a log-rank test [34]. In addition, primary endpoint LC was reviewed using Cox proportional hazards regression models, accounting for potential confounders in multivariable analysis. Potential confounders were first identified in the analysis of characteristics (p < 0.100), subsequently in univariable analysis (p < 0.100), and with use of the backward selection procedure included in multivariable analysis. Variables were considered as potential confounders when p < 0.050 in the final model. Variables were considered actual confounders when the regression coefficient in the Cox regression model for LC changed by >10% in the corrected model. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95 per cent confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated.
Statistical analyses were conducted in agreement with a biostatistician (BILW), and SPSS® Version 28.0 (IBM®, Armonk, New York, NY, USA) [40] and R version 4.0.3. (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria) were used to perform the analyses [41].

3. Results

A total of 338 patients receiving thermal ablation alone were identified from the prospective AmCORE database. Eventually, 280 patients undergoing 347 procedures with 856 CRLM between December of 2000 and November of 2021 were included for further analyses (Figure 1).

3.1. Patient- and Disease-Related Characteristics

Patients with at least one tumor > 3 cm and ≤5 cm were included in the intermediate-size (3–5 cm) group (N = 59). Patients with merely ablations for smaller-size tumors were included in the small-size (0–3 cm) group (N = 221). Patient- and disease-related characteristics are presented in Table 1. Most patients in this cohort were male (69.3%). The mean age of this cohort was 65.6 years (SD 11.1). Comorbidities differed significantly between the small-size group and intermediate-size group. Patients with small-size CRLM presented less frequently with comorbidities compared to patients with intermediate-size CRLM (11.9% vs. 27.6%; p = 0.012). Disease-related characteristics concerning primary tumor location, molecular profile, and extrahepatic disease were well-balanced among the two groups. More patients in the small-size group were diagnosed with synchronous disease compared to the intermediate-size group (59.2% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.032). Median follow-up time after thermal ablation was 24.2 months in both groups.

3.2. Procedure- and Tumor-Related Characteristics

Procedures where at least one intermediate-size tumor > 3 cm and ≤5 cm was treated were included in the intermediate-size group (N = 60); the other procedures were included in the small-size (≤3 cm) group (N = 287). A total of 783 tumors were included in the small-size group and 73 tumors in the intermediate-size group. Table 2 shows the procedure and tumor-related characteristics. The total number of tumors treated in the same procedure was significantly higher for small-size versus intermediate-size CRLM (p < 0.001). Thermal ablation techniques and modalities were well-balanced over the two groups. No significant difference in approach was found between groups. Most patients received general anesthesia. The vast majority of ablation zones of small-size tumors showed margins > 5 mm (94.2%), whereas, for intermediate-size tumors, only 58.5% reached margins > 5 mm (p = 0.020). Median tumor size in the small-size group was 13.0 mm (IQR 8.0–20.0), and median tumor size in the intermediate-size group was 36.0 mm (IQR 33.0–40.5).

3.3. Complications and Length of Hospital Stay

The number and severity of complications was not significantly different between the small-size and intermediate-size groups (Table 3; p = 0.546). The complication rate was 33/221 (14.9%) of patients with small-size CRLM and 9/59 (15.3%) of patients with intermediate-size CRLM. One patient in the intermediate-size group had a grade 4 complication following open thermal ablation: post-procedural ileus and aspiration pneumonia with staphylococcus aureus bacteremia requiring intensive care unit admission. The median length of hospital stay was 1 day (IQR 1.0–4.0) in the small-size group compared to 4 days (IQR 1.0–5.0) in the intermediate-size group (p = 0.002).

3.4. Overall Survival (OS)

All patients receiving thermal ablation alone as the first local treatment were included in analysis of OS (Figure 2): 154 patients in the small-size group and 42 patients in the intermediate-size group. Median OS was 50.3 months in the whole cohort, 53.0 months for patients with small-size CRLM, and 40.7 months for patients with intermediate-size CRLM. In total, 74 out of 196 patients (37.8%) died during follow-up, 49 out of 154 (31.8%) in the small-size group and 25 out of 42 (37.8%) in the intermediate-size group. No significant difference between patients with small- and intermediate-size CRLM was revealed in the overall comparison of OS (HR 1.339; 95% CI 0.824–2.176; p = 0.239). Altogether, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 91.7%, 65.6%, and 37.1%, respectively. In the small-size group, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 91.8%, 68.1%, and 39.5%, respectively. In the intermediate-size group, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 91.6%, 59.0%, and 31.4%, respectively. Though a higher number of CRLM were present in the small-size group, univariable analysis did not identify the number of CRLM as potential confounder regarding OS (p = 0.84).

3.5. Local Tumor Progression-Free Survival (LTPFS) and Local Tumor Control (LC)

During follow-up, LTP developed in 91 of 856 tumors (10.6%); 71/783 (9.1%) were small-size tumors, and 20/73 (27.4%) were intermediate-size tumors (Figure 3A). LTPFS was superior in the small-size group compared to the intermediate-size group (HR 3.388; 95% CI 2.060–5.570; p < 0.001). In the small-size group, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year LPTFS rates were 92.5%, 88.1%, and 88.1%, respectively. In the intermediate-size group, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year LTPFS rates were 74.7%, 66.0%, and 66.0%, respectively. The results of LTPFS significantly improved over time. Comparing results of LC before 2010 and after 2010 for intermediate-size CRLM, a significant difference was found (HR 0.315; 95% CI 0.127–0.781; p = 0.013) in favor of tumors treated after 2010.
Eventual loss of LC at follow-up was reported in 24 out of 856 tumors (2.8%), 16 out of 783 (2.0%) small-size tumors, and 8 out of 73 intermediate-size tumors (11.0%) (Figure 3B). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year LC rates were 98.6%, 96.7%, and 94.0%, respectively, in the whole cohort, 99.1%, 97.8%, and 95.3% in the small-size group, and 93.9%, 85.4%, and 81.5% in the intermediate-size group. Compared to small-size CRLM, LC was significantly lower in intermediate-size CRLM (HR 5.383; 95% CI 2.303–12.584; p < 0.001).
ASA, comorbidities, time to first diagnosis of CRLM, preprocedural chemotherapy, number of metastases, and margin size differed significantly when comparing baseline characteristics between the two groups and were included in univariable analysis (Table 4). Univariable analysis identified four potential associations with LC: gender (p = 0.025), age (p = 0.040), number of tumors (p < 0.001), and margin size (p = 0.008). The variables were included in multivariable analysis to analyze potential confounders associated with the two groups influencing LC. Gender (p = 0.008) and number of tumors (p = 0.003) were significant confounders in the multivariable analysis. The corrected HR for LC was still significantly worse for intermediate-size CRLM (HR 3.744; 95% CI 1.537–9.125; p = 0.004).

4. Discussion

Thermal ablation has emerged as a safe and effective treatment option to eradicate small-size, unresectable CRLM (≤3 cm). For larger CRLM, safety, local control, and overall efficacy are not well established and insufficiently validated. In this AmCORE-based study, patients with intermediate-size CRLM demonstrated lower LTPFS and LC compared to patients with small-size CRLM. During follow-up, LTP developed in 27.4% of intermediate-size tumors, and 5-year LTPFS was 66.0%. Though these results seem to validate thermal ablation for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM, the outcomes require further improvement before partial hepatectomy can be truly challenged for larger lesions. However, including repeat treatments, the vast majority of thermally ablated intermediate-size tumors were ultimately eradicated with a LC of approximately 80%.
Larger tumor size did not significantly affect complications, though patients had an increased length of hospital stay (median of 4 days versus 1 day for small-size CRLM). The difference in length of hospital stay may be caused by the difference in treatment approach, where 46.7% of the small-size group vs. 54.8% of the intermediate-size group were treated with an open approach. However, safety was not at risk, as the total complication rate was 15.3% for intermediate-size tumors compared to 14.9% for small-size tumors, and complications per grade did not significantly differ between groups. Interestingly, no significant difference in OS was observed between the small-size and the intermediate-size group. This suggests that thermal ablation may yield similar survival outcomes for both small- and intermediate-size CRLM.
In the current literature, increased tumor sizes over 3 cm are associated with exponentially reduced technical efficacy, leading to increased LTP rates following thermal ablation [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,43,44,45]. In a recent study assessing primary tumor sidedness and mutational status, subgroup analyses of intermediate-size (3–5 cm) CRLM (12.4% of 2101 tumor) showed a reduced local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) associated with increasing tumor volume [22]. In addition, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Nieuwenhuizen et al. compared safety and efficacy of thermal ablation, IRE, and SABR for intermediate-size CRLM [32]. Following thermal ablation, LTP was reported in up to 62% of patients with intermediate-size CRLM [25,46,47,48]. Mao et al. and Nielsen et al. [25,47] described comparable results to our series, with LTP rates of 25% and 27%, respectively. Only Bale et al. found lower LTP rates of intermediate-size CRLM compared to small-size CRLM (11.1% vs. 17.7%) [46]. Complications were not specifically reported for patients with intermediate-size CRLM by Nieuwenhuizen et al. or Bale et al.; however, the present complication rates did not vary from the total complication rates of the whole cohort of these series [32,46].
Consensus concerning local thermal and non-thermal ablative therapies for unresectable (intermediate-size) CRLM has not been reached, as a result of a lack of studies directly comparing RFA to MWA, SABR, or IRE [24,32]. RFA and MWA are currently widely adopted treatment techniques for small-size unresectable CRLM, given the safety profile and LC, and are now challenging surgical resection for upfront resectable CRLM ≤ 3 cm to prove non-inferiority in the COLLISION trial [16,24,49,50]. SABR has been suggested by the radiation oncology community as an alternative for limited number of intermediate-size unresectable CRLM, as it is associated with an excellent safety profile and acceptable LC rates that are potentially less affected by increased size [51,52,53,54]. However, higher complication rates associated with thermal ablation of local tumor recurrences after SABR should be taken into account when choosing the right treatment sequence [51]. In addition, a recent study by van Nieuwenhuizen et al., with potential residual confounding, showed superior LTPFS and LC of thermal ablation compared to SABR [51]. The ongoing phase II/III randomized controlled COLLISION-XL trial (NCT04081168) for unresectable intermediate-size CRLM, comparing SABR to MWA, should provide definitive answers [55]. At last, IRE recently arose as a non-thermal ablative method inducing permanent disruption of the cell membrane with the use of high-voltage electric pulses. This technique could be especially useful for CRLM adjacent to vascular and biliary structures, and it is also potentially less influenced by tumor volume as it represents a multi-electrode tumor-bracketing technique [56,57,58].
Important prognosticators of LTP are the peri-ablational safety margins, predicting technical success (A0 ablations), LTPFS, and LC. In this study, a minimum of 5 mm margin, and, if possible, over 10 mm, surrounding the tumor is suggested to obtain these A0 ablation margins [37,59,60,61,62]. For larger-size tumors, the preferred size of the tumor-free ablation zone is not only a trade-off between efficacy and safety, but also requires taking into account tumor perfusion, tumor boundaries, interstitial space porosity during heating, and the applied heat dosage in order to spare healthy surrounding parenchyma [63,64]. Multiple technical developments have been proposed to improve tumor visibility with accurate needle tracking and positioning, such as real-time navigation, image fusion, and computed tomography hepatic arteriography (CTHA) guidance of percutaneous ablation [37,59,60,61,62,65,66,67]. As discussed by Puijk et al. and confirmed by this study for intermediate-size CRLM, efficacy (LTPFS) has significantly improved over time [43]. Forthcoming technical improvements should further contribute to prevent insufficient treatment and provide even longer LTPFS and LC. Adequate A0 ablation margins are challenged by enlarged tumor sizes [68]. To achieve the above-mentioned margin sizes in intermediate-size CRLM, multiple electrodes may be used to increase the size of the ablation zone. However, the treatment strategy for thermal ablation of larger-size CRLM is frequently found to be operator dependent [68].
The relatively high number of tumors endorsed adequately powered statistical analyses, therefore strengthening this study. However, the non-randomized study design is a substantial limitation, which potentially induced selection bias and confounding. Additional multivariable analysis was performed to account for potential confounders; nonetheless, exclusion of all residual confounding is not assured. The concomitant presence of small-size CRLM in many intermediate-size group patients and the significantly higher number of CRLM in the small-size group may pose confounders for survival due to the fact that prognosis is not only influenced by size, but also by the number of CRLM. However, since both size and number represent parameters to quantify volumetric disease burden, this confounder is at least partially nullified given the inverse correlation between size and volume.
All patients were discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board; therefore, the choice of treatment was based on local expertise, which may induce selection bias. In addition, inclusion of patients treated over >20 years ago may have led to population or historical bias. Furthermore, improved thermal ablation techniques, as well as the use of confirmation software and CTHA, have led to increased technical efficacy over the study period [43]. The technique of thermal ablation of patients treated in this study do not represent all present, universal thermal ablation techniques. As it is likely that operator-experience is strongly correlated to outcome, results cannot be automatically extrapolated to centers with more limited experience.

5. Conclusions

To conclude, LTPFS and LC were inferior when comparing thermal ablation for intermediate-size versus small-size CRLM. Nonetheless, the low complication rate, comparable OS, and the relatively high rate of eventual LC (80%) seem to validate thermal ablation for unresectable intermediate-size CRLM in high-volume dedicated centers. Further research is warranted to explore strategies to optimize local control for intermediate-size CRLM following treatment with thermal and non-thermal ablation techniques.
Results from randomized controlled trials such as the COLLISION-XL trial (NCT04081168) (unresectable colorectal liver metastases: stereotactic body radiotherapy versus microwave ablation—a phase II randomized controlled trial for CRLM 3–5 cm) are required in order to provide clarification on the preferred local ablative method for intermediate-size unresectable CRLM.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D., S.v.d.L. and M.R.M.; methodology, M.D., S.v.d.L. and B.I.L.-W.; software, M.D. and B.I.L.-W.; validation, M.D., S.v.d.L., T.E.B., M.P.v.d.T., R.-J.S., K.S.V., B.I.L.-W. and M.R.M.; formal analysis, M.D., S.v.d.L. and B.I.L.-W.; investigation, M.D.; resources, M.D., S.v.d.L. and B.I.L.-W.; data curation, M.D., S.v.d.L., R.S.P., H.H.S., D.J.W.V., F.E.F.T. and M.R.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D. and S.v.d.L.; writing—review and editing, M.D., S.v.d.L., R.S.P., H.H.S., D.J.W.V., F.E.F.T., H.J.S., T.E.B., M.P.v.d.T., B.I.L.-W., R.-J.S., K.S.V. and M.R.M.; visualization, M.D., S.v.d.L. and M.R.M.; supervision, M.R.M.; project administration, M.D. and S.v.d.L.; funding acquisition, not applicable. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WHO. Estimated Age-Standardized Incidence Rates (World) in 2020, All Cancers, Both Sexes, All Ages. Available online: http://gco.iarc.fr/today/online-analysis-map (accessed on 4 March 2021).
  2. Manfredi, S.; Lepage, C.; Hatem, C.; Coatmeur, O.; Faivre, J.; Bouvier, A.M. Epidemiology and management of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann. Surg. 2006, 244, 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hackl, C.; Neumann, P.; Gerken, M.; Loss, M.; Klinkhammer-Schalke, M.; Schlitt, H.J. Treatment of colorectal liver metastases in Germany: A ten-year population-based analysis of 5772 cases of primary colorectal adenocarcinoma. BMC Cancer 2014, 14, 810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Engstrand, J.; Nilsson, H.; Stromberg, C.; Jonas, E.; Freedman, J. Colorectal cancer liver metastases—A population-based study on incidence, management and survival. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kopetz, S.; Chang, G.J.; Overman, M.J.; Eng, C.; Sargent, D.J.; Larson, D.W.; Grothey, A.; Vauthey, J.N.; Nagorney, D.M.; McWilliams, R.R. Improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer is associated with adoption of hepatic resection and improved chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 3677–3683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Stangl, R.; Altendorf-Hofmann, A.; Charnley, R.M.; Scheele, J. Factors influencing the natural history of colorectal liver metastases. Lancet 1994, 343, 1405–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Scheele, J.; Stangl, R.; Altendorf-Hofmann, A. Hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma: Impact of surgical resection on the natural history. Br. J. Surg. 1990, 77, 1241–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wagner, J.S.; Adson, M.A.; Van Heerden, J.A.; Adson, M.H.; Ilstrup, D.M. The natural history of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. A comparison with resective treatment. Ann. Surg. 1984, 199, 502–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yang, Q.; Liao, F.; Huang, Y.; Jiang, C.; Liu, S.; He, W.; Kong, P.; Zhang, B.; Xia, L. Longterm effects of palliative local treatment of incurable metastatic lesions in colorectal cancer patients. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 21034–21045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Adam, R.; Avisar, E.; Ariche, A.; Giachetti, S.; Azoulay, D.; Castaing, D.; Kunstlinger, F.; Levi, F.; Bismuth, F. Five-year survival following hepatic resection after neoadjuvant therapy for nonresectable colorectal. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2001, 8, 347–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. House, M.G.; Ito, H.; Gonen, M.; Fong, Y.; Allen, P.J.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Brennan, M.F.; Blumgart, L.H.; Jarnagin, W.R.; D’Angelica, M.I. Survival after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: Trends in outcomes for 1600 patients during two decades at a single institution. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2010, 210, 744–752, 752–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kanas, G.P.; Taylor, A.; Primrose, J.N.; Langeberg, W.J.; Kelsh, M.A.; Mowat, F.S.; Alexander, D.D.; Choti, M.A.; Poston, G. Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: Review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors. Clin. Epidemiol. 2012, 4, 283–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Nordlinger, B.; Sorbye, H.; Glimelius, B.; Poston, G.J.; Schlag, P.M.; Rougier, P.; Bechstein, W.O.; Primrose, J.N.; Walpole, E.T.; Finch-Jones, M.; 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. 2013, 14, 1208–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Elfrink, A.K.E.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; van den Tol, M.P.; Burgmans, M.C.; Prevoo, W.; Coolsen, M.M.E.; van den Boezem, P.B.; van Delden, O.M.; Hagendoorn, J.; Patijn, G.A.; et al. Hospital variation in combined liver resection and thermal ablation for colorectal liver metastases and impact on short-term postoperative outcomes: A nationwide population-based study. HPB 2021, 23, 827–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Adam, R.; Delvart, V.; Pascal, G.; Valeanu, A.; Castaing, D.; Azoulay, D.; Giacchetti, S.; Paule, B.; Kunstlinger, F.; Ghemard, O.; et al. Rescue surgery for unresectable colorectal liver metastases downstaged by chemotherapy: A model to predict long-term survival. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 644–657, discussion 657–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Meijerink, M.R.; Puijk, R.S.; van Tilborg, A.; Henningsen, K.H.; Fernandez, L.G.; Neyt, M.; Heymans, J.; Frankema, J.S.; de Jong, K.P.; Richel, D.J.; 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. Interv. Radiol. 2018, 41, 1189–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Scheffer, H.J.; Melenhorst, M.C.; Echenique, A.M.; Nielsen, K.; van Tilborg, A.A.; van den Bos, W.; Vroomen, L.G.; van den Tol, P.M.; Meijerink, M.R. Irreversible Electroporation for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2015, 18, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Correa-Gallego, C.; Fong, Y.; Gonen, M.; D’Angelica, M.I.; Allen, P.J.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Jarnagin, W.R.; Kingham, T.P. A retrospective comparison of microwave ablation vs. radiofrequency ablation for colorectal cancer hepatic metastases. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 21, 4278–4283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. van der Pool, A.E.; Mendez Romero, A.; Wunderink, W.; Heijmen, B.J.; Levendag, P.C.; Verhoef, C.; Ijzermans, J.N. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for colorectal liver metastases. Br. J. Surg. 2010, 97, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dijkstra, M.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.S.; Geboers, B.; Timmer, F.E.F.; Schouten, E.A.C.; Scheffer, H.J.; de Vries, J.J.J.; Ket, J.C.F.; Versteeg, K.S.; et al. The Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Repeat Local Treatment of Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2021, 13, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dijkstra, M.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.S.; Timmer, F.E.F.; Geboers, B.; Schouten, E.A.C.; Opperman, J.; Scheffer, H.J.; de Vries, J.J.J.; Swijnenburg, R.J.; et al. Thermal Ablation Compared to Partial Hepatectomy for Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases: An Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) Based Study. Cancers 2021, 13, 2769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dijkstra, M.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.S.; Timmer, F.E.F.; Geboers, B.; Schouten, E.A.C.; Opperman, J.; Scheffer, H.J.; de Vries, J.J.J.; Versteeg, K.S.; 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 2021, 9, 962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dijkstra, M.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.S.; Timmer, F.E.F.; Geboers, B.; Schouten, E.A.C.; Opperman, J.; Scheffer, H.J.; de Vries, J.J.J.; Versteeg, K.S.; et al. Repeat Local Treatment of Recurrent Colorectal Liver Metastases, the Role of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: An Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE) Based Study. Cancers 2021, 13, 4997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.S.; van den Bemd, B.; Aldrighetti, L.; Arntz, M.; van den Boezem, P.B.; Bruynzeel, A.M.E.; Burgmans, M.C.; de Cobelli, F.; Coolsen, M.M.E.; et al. Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases: Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group. Cancers 2020, 12, 1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nielsen, K.; van Tilborg, A.A.; Meijerink, M.R.; Macintosh, M.O.; Zonderhuis, B.M.; de Lange, E.S.; Comans, E.F.; Meijer, S.; van den Tol, M.P. Incidence and treatment of local site recurrences following RFA of colorectal liver metastases. World J. Surg. 2013, 37, 1340–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. van Tilborg, A.A.; Scheffer, H.J.; de Jong, M.C.; Vroomen, L.G.; Nielsen, K.; van Kuijk, C.; van den Tol, P.M.; Meijerink, M.R. MWA Versus RFA for Perivascular and Peribiliary CRLM: A Retrospective Patient- and Lesion-Based Analysis of Two Historical Cohorts. CardioVasc. Interv. Radiol. 2016, 39, 1438–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Tanis, E.; Nordlinger, B.; Mauer, M.; Sorbye, H.; van Coevorden, F.; Gruenberger, T.; Schlag, P.M.; Punt, C.J.; Ledermann, J.; Ruers, T.J. Local recurrence rates after radiofrequency ablation or resection of colorectal liver metastases. Analysis of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer #40004 and #40983. Eur. J. Cancer 2014, 50, 912–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Solbiati, L.; Livraghi, T.; Goldberg, S.N.; Ierace, T.; Meloni, F.; Dellanoce, M.; Cova, L.; Halpern, E.F.; Gazelle, G.S. Percutaneous radio-frequency ablation of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: Long-term results in 117 patients. Radiology 2001, 221, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Berber, E.; Siperstein, A. Local recurrence after laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors: An analysis of 1032 tumors. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008, 15, 2757–2764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Van Tilborg, A.A.; Meijerink, M.R.; Sietses, C.; Van Waesberghe, J.H.; Mackintosh, M.O.; Meijer, S.; Van Kuijk, C.; Van Den Tol, P. Long-term results of radiofrequency ablation for unresectable colorectal liver metastases: A potentially curative intervention. Br. J. Radiol. 2011, 84, 556–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ayav, A.; Germain, A.; Marchal, F.; Tierris, I.; Laurent, V.; Bazin, C.; Yuan, Y.; Robert, L.; Brunaud, L.; Bresler, L. Radiofrequency ablation of unresectable liver tumors: Factors associated with incomplete ablation or local recurrence. Am. J. Surg. 2010, 200, 435–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Dijkstra, M.; Puijk, R.S.; Geboers, B.; Ruarus, A.H.; Schouten, E.A.; Nielsen, K.; de Vries, J.J.J.; Bruynzeel, A.M.E.; Scheffer, H.J.; et al. Microwave Ablation, Radiofrequency Ablation, Irreversible Electroporation, and Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for Intermediate Size (3–5 cm) Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2022, 24, 793–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gotzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P.; Initiative, S. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Puijk, R.S.; Ahmed, M.; Adam, A.; Arai, Y.; Arellano, R.; de Baere, T.; Bale, R.; Bellera, C.; Binkert, C.A.; Brace, C.L.; et al. Consensus Guidelines for the Definition of Time-to-Event End Points in Image-guided Tumor Ablation: Results of the SIO and DATECAN Initiative. Radiology 2021, 301, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ahmed, M.; Solbiati, L.; Brace, C.L.; Breen, D.J.; Callstrom, M.R.; Charboneau, J.W.; Chen, M.H.; Choi, B.I.; de Baere, T.; Dodd, G.D., III; et al. Image-guided tumor ablation: Standardization of terminology and reporting criteria--a 10-year update. Radiology 2014, 273, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Crocetti, L.; de Baere, T.; Lencioni, R. Quality improvement guidelines for radiofrequency ablation of liver tumours. CardioVasc. Interv. Radiol. 2010, 33, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shady, W.; Petre, E.N.; Do, K.G.; Gonen, M.; Yarmohammadi, H.; Brown, K.T.; Kemeny, N.E.; D’Angelica, M.; Kingham, P.T.; Solomon, S.B.; 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. 2018, 29, 268–275.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Crocetti, L.; de Baére, T.; Pereira, P.L.; Tarantino, F.P. CIRSE Standards of Practice on Thermal Ablation of Liver Tumours. CardioVasc. Interv. Radiol. 2020, 43, 951–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Comprehensive Cancer Organisation the Netherlands (I.K.N.L.). National Evidence-Based Guideline. Colorectaalcarcinoom. 2014. Available online: http://oncoline.nl/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  40. IBM Corp. IBM® SPSS® Statistics for Windows; Version 26.0; Released 2019; IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  41. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R for Windows Version 4.0.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019; Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).
  42. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Available online: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5x11.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2020).
  43. Puijk, R.S.; Dijkstra, M.; van den Bemd, B.A.T.; Ruarus, A.H.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Geboers, B.; Timmer, F.E.F.; Schouten, E.A.C.; de Vries, J.J.J.; van der Meijs, B.B.; et al. Improved Outcomes of Thermal Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A 10-Year Analysis from the Prospective Amsterdam CORE Registry (AmCORE). CardioVasc. Interv. Radiol. 2022, 45, 1074–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Puijk, R.S.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; van den Bemd, B.A.T.; Ruarus, A.H.; Geboers, B.; Vroomen, L.; Muglia, R.; de Jong, M.C.; de Vries, J.J.J.; Scheffer, H.J.; et al. Transcatheter CT Hepatic Arteriography Compared with Conventional CT Fluoroscopy Guidance in Percutaneous Thermal Ablation to Treat Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Single-Center Comparative Analysis of 2 Historical Cohorts. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2020, 31, 1772–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Puijk, R.S.; Ziedses des Plantes, V.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Ruarus, A.H.; Vroomen, L.; de Jong, M.C.; Geboers, B.; Hoedemaker-Boon, C.J.; Thone-Passchier, D.H.; Gercek, C.C.; et al. Propofol Compared to Midazolam Sedation and to General Anesthesia for Percutaneous Microwave Ablation in Patients with Hepatic Malignancies: A Single-Center Comparative Analysis of Three Historical Cohorts. CardioVasc. Interv. Radiol. 2019, 42, 1597–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bale, R.; Widmann, G.; Schullian, P.; Haidu, M.; Pall, G.; Klaus, A.; Weiss, H.; Biebl, M.; Margreiter, R. Percutaneous stereotactic radiofrequency ablation of colorectal liver metastases. Eur. Radiol. 2012, 22, 930–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Mao, R.; Zhao, J.J.; Bi, X.Y.; Zhang, Y.F.; Han, Y.; Li, Z.Y.; Zhao, H.; Cai, J.Q. Resectable recurrent colorectal liver metastasis: Can radiofrequency ablation replace repeated metastasectomy? ANZ J. Surg. 2019, 89, 908–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, C.Z.; Yan, G.X.; Xin, H.; Liu, Z.Y. Oncological outcomes and predictors of radiofrequency ablation of colorectal cancer liver metastases. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2020, 12, 1044–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Puijk, R.S.; Ruarus, A.H.; Vroomen, L.; van Tilborg, A.; Scheffer, H.J.; Nielsen, K.; de Jong, M.C.; de Vries, J.J.J.; Zonderhuis, B.M.; Eker, H.H.; et al. Colorectal liver metastases: Surgery versus thermal ablation (COLLISION)—A phase III single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. van Amerongen, M.J.; Jenniskens, S.F.M.; van den Boezem, P.B.; Futterer, J.J.; de Wilt, J.H.W. Radiofrequency ablation compared to surgical resection for curative treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases—A meta-analysis. HPB 2017, 19, 749–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Dijkstra, M.; Puijk, R.S.; Timmer, F.E.F.; Nota, I.M.; Opperman, J.; van den Bemd, B.; Geboers, B.; Ruarus, A.H.; Schouten, E.A.C.; et al. Thermal Ablation versus Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy to Treat Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comparative Analysis from the Prospective Amsterdam CORE Registry. Cancers 2021, 13, 4303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mahadevan, A.; Blanck, O.; Lanciano, R.; Peddada, A.; Sundararaman, S.; D’Ambrosio, D.; Sharma, S.; Perry, D.; Kolker, J.; Davis, J. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for liver metastasis—Clinical outcomes from the international multi-institutional RSSearch(R) Patient Registry. Radiat. Oncol. 2018, 13, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Scorsetti, M.; Comito, T.; Tozzi, A.; Navarria, P.; Fogliata, A.; Clerici, E.; Mancosu, P.; Reggiori, G.; Rimassa, L.; Torzilli, G.; et al. Final results of a phase II trial for stereotactic body radiation therapy for patients with inoperable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 141, 543–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Berber, B.; Ibarra, R.; Snyder, L.; Yao, M.; Fabien, J.; Milano, M.T.; Katz, A.W.; Goodman, K.; Stephans, K.; El-Gazzaz, G.; et al. Multicentre results of stereotactic body radiotherapy for secondary liver tumours. HPB 2013, 15, 851–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. van der Lei, S.; Dijkstra, M.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Schulz, H.H.; Vos, D.J.W.; Versteeg, K.S.; Buffart, T.E.; Swijnenburg, R.J.; de Vries, J.J.J.; Bruynzeel, A.M.E.; et al. Unresectable Intermediate-Size (3–5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy Versus Microwave Ablation (COLLISION-XL): Protocol of a Phase II/III Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial. CardioVasc. Interv. Radiol. 2023, 46, 1076–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Geboers, B.; Ruarus, A.H.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; Puijk, R.S.; Scheffer, H.J.; de Gruijl, T.D.; Meijerink, M.R. Needle-guided ablation of locally advanced pancreatic cancer: Cytoreduction or immunomodulation by in vivo vaccination? Chin. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 8, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ruarus, A.H.; Vroomen, L.; Puijk, R.S.; Scheffer, H.J.; Zonderhuis, B.M.; Kazemier, G.; van den Tol, M.P.; Berger, F.H.; Meijerink, M.R. Irreversible Electroporation in Hepatopancreaticobiliary Tumours. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2018, 69, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Meijerink, M.R.; Ruarus, A.H.; Vroomen, L.; Puijk, R.S.; Geboers, B.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.; van den Bemd, B.A.T.; Nielsen, K.; de Vries, J.J.J.; van Lienden, K.P.; et al. Irreversible Electroporation to Treat Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases (COLDFIRE-2): A Phase II, Two-Center, Single-Arm Clinical Trial. Radiology 2021, 299, 470–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, X.; Sofocleous, C.T.; Erinjeri, J.P.; Petre, E.N.; Gonen, M.; Do, K.G.; Brown, K.T.; Covey, A.M.; Brody, L.A.; Alago, W.; et al. Margin size is an independent predictor of local tumor progression after ablation of colon cancer liver metastases. CardioVasc. Interv. Radiol. 2013, 36, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Solbiati, M.; Muglia, R.; Goldberg, S.N.; Ierace, T.; Rotilio, A.; Passera, K.M.; Marre, I.; Solbiati, L. A novel software platform for volumetric assessment of ablation completeness. Int. J. Hyperth. 2019, 36, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Kaye, E.A.; Cornelis, F.H.; Petre, E.N.; Tyagi, N.; Shady, W.; Shi, W.; Zhang, Z.; Solomon, S.B.; Sofocleous, C.T.; Durack, J.C. Volumetric 3D assessment of ablation zones after thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases to improve prediction of local tumor progression. Eur. Radiol. 2019, 29, 2698–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Laimer, G.; Jaschke, N.; Schullian, P.; Putzer, D.; Eberle, G.; Solbiati, M.; Solbiati, L.; Goldberg, S.N.; Bale, R. Volumetric assessment of the periablational safety margin after thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases. Eur. Radiol. 2021, 31, 6489–6499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Singh, M.; Singh, T.; Soni, S. Pre-operative Assessment of Ablation Margins for Variable Blood Perfusion Metrics in a Magnetic Resonance Imaging Based Complex Breast Tumour Anatomy: Simulation Paradigms in Thermal Therapies. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2021, 198, 105781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Singh, M. Quantitative evaluation of effects of coupled temperature elevation, thermal damage, and enlarged porosity on nanoparticle migration in tumors during magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia. Int. Commun. Heat. Mass. Transf. 2021, 126, 105393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. van Tilborg, A.A.; Scheffer, H.J.; van der Meijs, B.B.; van Werkum, M.H.; Melenhorst, M.C.; van den Tol, P.M.; Meijerink, M.R. Transcatheter CT hepatic arteriography-guided percutaneous ablation to treat ablation site recurrences of colorectal liver metastases: The incomplete ring sign. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2015, 26, 583–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Puijk, R.S.; Ruarus, A.H.; Scheffer, H.J.; Vroomen, L.; van Tilborg, A.; de Vries, J.J.J.; Berger, F.H.; van den Tol, P.M.P.; Meijerink, M.R. Percutaneous Liver Tumour Ablation: Image Guidance, Endpoint Assessment, and Quality Control. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2018, 69, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. van der Lei, S.; Opperman, J.; Dijkstra, M.; Kors, N.; Boon, R.; van den Bemd, B.A.T.; Timmer, F.E.F.; Nota, I.; van den Bergh, J.E.; de Vries, J.J.J.; et al. The Added Diagnostic Value of Transcatheter CT Hepatic Arteriography for Intraprocedural Detection of Previously Unknown Colorectal Liver Metastases During Percutaneous Ablation and Impact on the Definitive Treatment Plan. CardioVasc. Interv. Radiol. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Schullian, P.; Laimer, G.; Johnston, E.; Putzer, D.; Eberle, G.; Scharll, Y.; Widmann, G.; Kolbitsch, C.; Bale, R. Technical efficacy and local recurrence after stereotactic radiofrequency ablation of 2653 liver tumors: A 15-year single-center experience with evaluation of prognostic factors. Int. J. Hyperth. 2022, 39, 421–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 15 04346 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart of included and excluded patients.
Figure 1. Flowchart of included and excluded patients.
Cancers 15 04346 g001
Cancers 15 04346 g002
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival (OS) after thermal ablation of small-size CRLM (red) versus intermediate-size CRLM (green). Numbers at risk (number of events) are per patient. Overall comparison log-rank test, p = 0.240.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival (OS) after thermal ablation of small-size CRLM (red) versus intermediate-size CRLM (green). Numbers at risk (number of events) are per patient. Overall comparison log-rank test, p = 0.240.
Cancers 15 04346 g002
Cancers 15 04346 g003
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier curves of (A) local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and (B) local tumor control (LC) per tumor after thermal ablation of small-size CRLM (red) versus intermediate-size CRLM (green). Numbers at risk (number of events) are per tumor. Overall comparison log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test, (A) p < 0.001 and (B) p < 0.001. Death without local tumor progression (LTP) or loss of LC is censored.
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier curves of (A) local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) and (B) local tumor control (LC) per tumor after thermal ablation of small-size CRLM (red) versus intermediate-size CRLM (green). Numbers at risk (number of events) are per tumor. Overall comparison log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test, (A) p < 0.001 and (B) p < 0.001. Death without local tumor progression (LTP) or loss of LC is censored.
Cancers 15 04346 g003
Table 1. Patient- and disease-related characteristics.
Table 1. Patient- and disease-related characteristics.
Total
N = 280		Small
N = 221		Intermediate
N = 59		p-Value
Patient-Related Characteristics
Gender Male69.367.974.6
Female30.732.125.40.346 a
Age (years) Mean (SD)65.6 (11.1)65.3 (11.2)66.8 (10.6)0.365 b
ASA physical status16.56.95.3
269.872.957.9
323.319.736.8
40.40.50.00.055 c
ComorbiditiesNone49.852.141.4
Minimal35.036.131.0
Major15.211.927.60.012 c
Disease-related characteristics
Primary tumor locationRight-sided colon21.821.722.0
Left-sided colon47.148.044.1
Rectum31.130.333.90.842 c
Molecular profileRASwt/mut/unknown11.4/7.1/81.511.3/7.7/81.011.9/33.9/54.20.196 c
BRAFwt/mut/unknown16.8/1.1/82.117.2/1.4/81.415.3/1.7/83.00.236 c
MSS/MSI/unknown29.6/0.4/73.030.3/0.5/69.227.1/0.0/72.90.624 c
Time interval to diagnosis CRLM Metachronous 44.240.857.4
Synchronous55.859.242.60.032 c
Extrahepatic disease at first diagnosis of CRLMNo93.293.193.6
Yes6.86.96.41.000 c
Categorical variables are reported as % of patients, continuous variables are reported as mean (SD), a = Fisher’s Exact Test, b = Independent t-Test, c = Pearson Chi-Square, ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists score.
Table 2. Procedure- and tumor-related characteristics.
Table 2. Procedure- and tumor-related characteristics.
Total
N = 347		Small
N = 287		Intermediate
N = 60		p-Value
Procedure-Related Characteristics
Preprocedural chemotherapyNo67.867.272.1
Yes32.232.827.90.603 a
Procedure number in course of treatment1st57.356.165.9
2nd–5th40.941.934.1
>5th1.72.00.00.352 b
Number of tumors150.146.277.3
2–539.541.922.7
>510.411.90.0<0.001 b
Ablation techniqueRFA34.933.047.7
MWA65.167.052.30.063 a
Ablation modalityRFA
RF3000™, LeVeen™29.227.143.2
Cool-tip™3.54.10.0
Starburst® (RITA®)1.21.02.3
Others0.60.32.3
MWA
Evident™2.12.02.3
Emprint™ 54.055.940.9
Solero™0.30.00.3
Others9.19.29.10.268 b
ApproachOpen30.328.740.9
Percutaneous69.771.359.10.115 a
Image-guidance techniqueConventional *48.447.256.8
CTHA51.652.843.20.261 a
Anesthesia Midazolam sedation8.79.06.8
Propofol sedation38.639.531.8
General anesthesia52.851.561.40.471 b
Total
N = 856		Small
N = 783		Intermediate
N = 73		p-Value
Tumor-Related Characteristics
Size (mm) Median (IQR)15.0 (9.0–22.0)13.0 (8.0–20.0)36.0 (33.0–40.5)<0.001 c
Margin size (mm)0–56.55.814.5
>593.594.258.50.020 a
Values are reported as % of patients and continuous variables are reported as median (IQR), * = intraoperative ultrasound or CT fluoroscopy, a = Fisher’s Exact Test, b = Pearson Chi-Square, c = Mann–Whitney U Test, RFA = radiofrequency ablation, MWA = microwave ablation, CTHA = CT hepatic arteriography.
Table 3. Complications and length of hospital stay (CTCAE) [42].
Table 3. Complications and length of hospital stay (CTCAE) [42].
Total
N = 280		Small
N = 221		Intermediate
N = 59		p-Value
Complications
Grade 13.63.63.4
Grade 26.16.83.4
Grade 35.04.18.5
Grade 40.40.50.0
Grade 50.00.00.00.546 a
Length of hospital stay1.0 (1.0–4.8)1.0 (1.0–4.0)4.0 (1.0–5.0)0.002 b
Values are reported as % of patients and median days (IQR), a = Pearson Chi-Square, b = Mann–Whitney U Test.
Table 4. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analysis to detect variables associated with local tumor control (LC).
Table 4. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analysis to detect variables associated with local tumor control (LC).
Univariable AnalysisMultivariable Analysis
HR (95% CI)p-ValueHR (95% CI)p-Value
SizeSmallReference<0.001Reference0.004
Intermediate5.383 (2.303–12.584) 3.744 (1.537–9.125)
Patient-related characteristics
GenderMaleReference0.025Reference0.008
Female2.497 (1.120–5.569) 2.980 (1.326–6.695)
Age1.043 (1.002–1.086)0.0401.027 (0.980–1.077)0.266
ASA physical status1Reference0.444
2NA
3NA
4NA
ComorbiditiesNoneReference0.211
Minimal0.651 (0.251–1.685)
Major1.860 (0.641–5.394)
Disease-related characteristics
Primary tumor locationRight-sided colonReference0.793
Left-sided colon0.901 (0.339–2.392)
Rectum0.673 (0.205–2.208)
First diagnosis of CRLMMetachronousReference0.122
Synchronous0.508 (0.215–1.199)
Extrahepatic disease at first diagnosis of CRLMNoReference0.345
Yes2.035 (0.465–8.899)
Procedure-related characteristics
Preprocedural chemotherapyNoReference0.287
Yes0.633 (0.272–1.470)
Procedure number in course of treatment 1stReference0.223
2nd–5th2.044 (0.911–4.586)
>5thNA
Number of tumors1Reference<0.001Reference0.003
2–50.247 (0.098–0.620) 0.281 (0.109–0.721)
>50.142 (0.046–0.437) 0.183 (0.057–0.588)
Ablation techniqueRFAReference0.916
MWA0.954 (0.403–2.263)
ApproachOpenReference0.260
Percutaneous1.264 (0.841–1.900)
Image-guidance techniqueConventional *Reference0.832
CTHA1.097 (0.465–2.585)
AnesthesiaMidazolam sedationReference0.116
Propofol sedation0.185 (0.035–0.988)
General anesthesia0.453 (0.164–1.250)
Tumor-related characteristics
Margin size<5 mmReference0.008Reference0.138
>5 mm0.221 (0.07–0.679) 0.384 (0.109–1.359)
* = intraoperative ultrasound or CT fluoroscopy, HR = hazard ratio, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval, ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists score, NA = insufficient group comparison, RFA = radiofrequency ablation, MWA = microwave ablation, CTHA = CT hepatic arteriography. Using backward selection procedure, results of step by step.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dijkstra, M.; van der Lei, S.; Puijk, R.S.; Schulz, H.H.; Vos, D.J.W.; Timmer, F.E.F.; Scheffer, H.J.; Buffart, T.E.; van den Tol, M.P.; Lissenberg-Witte, B.I.; et al. Efficacy of Thermal Ablation for Small-Size (0–3 cm) versus Intermediate-Size (3–5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE). Cancers 2023, 15, 4346. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15174346

AMA Style

Dijkstra M, van der Lei S, Puijk RS, Schulz HH, Vos DJW, Timmer FEF, Scheffer HJ, Buffart TE, van den Tol MP, Lissenberg-Witte BI, et al. Efficacy of Thermal Ablation for Small-Size (0–3 cm) versus Intermediate-Size (3–5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE). Cancers. 2023; 15(17):4346. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15174346

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dijkstra, Madelon, Susan van der Lei, Robbert S. Puijk, Hannah H. Schulz, Danielle J. W. Vos, Florentine E. F. Timmer, Hester J. Scheffer, Tineke E. Buffart, M. Petrousjka van den Tol, Birgit I. Lissenberg-Witte, and et al. 2023. "Efficacy of Thermal Ablation for Small-Size (0–3 cm) versus Intermediate-Size (3–5 cm) Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results from the Amsterdam Colorectal Liver Met Registry (AmCORE)" Cancers 15, no. 17: 4346. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15174346

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop