Next Article in Journal
Partial Lipodystrophy and LMNA p.R545H Variant
Next Article in Special Issue
How to Best Exploit Immunotherapeutics in Advanced Gastric Cancer: Between Biomarkers and Novel Cell-Based Approaches
Previous Article in Journal
MCP-1 Predicts Recurrent Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Persistent Inflammation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Role of Baseline Computed-Tomography-Evaluated Body Composition in Predicting Outcome and Toxicity from First-Line Therapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 10
Issue 5
10.3390/jcm10051141
jcm-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:
Review

Efficacy of Surgery for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Factors

by
Gianpaolo Marte
1,*,
Andrea Tufo
1,
Francesca Steccanella
1,
Ester Marra
1,
Piera Federico
2,
Angelica Petrillo
2 and
Pietro Maida
1
1
Department of General Surgery, Ospedale del Mare, 80147 Naples, Italy
2
Medical Oncology Unit, Ospedale del Mare, 80147 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(5), 1141; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051141
Submission received: 29 December 2020 / Revised: 27 February 2021 / Accepted: 1 March 2021 / Published: 9 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Multimodality Treatments in Metastatic Gastric Cancer)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: In the last 10 years, the management of patients with gastric cancer liver metastases (GCLM) has changed from chemotherapy alone, towards a multidisciplinary treatment with liver surgery playing a leading role. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of hepatectomy for GCLM and to analyze the impact of related prognostic factors on long-term outcomes. Methods: The databases PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles from January 2010 to September 2020. We included prospective and retrospective studies that reported the outcomes after hepatectomy for GCLM. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of prognostic factors was performed. Results: We included 40 studies, including 1573 participants who underwent hepatic resection for GCLM. Post-operative morbidity and 30-day mortality rates were 24.7% and 1.6%, respectively. One-year, 3-years, and 5-years overall survival (OS) were 72%, 37%, and 26%, respectively. The 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years disease-free survival (DFS) were 44%, 24%, and 22%, respectively. Well-moderately differentiated tumors, pT1–2 and pN0–1 adenocarcinoma, R0 resection, the presence of solitary metastasis, unilobar metastases, metachronous metastasis, and chemotherapy were all strongly positively associated to better OS and DFS. Conclusion: In the present study, we demonstrated that hepatectomy for GCLM is feasible and provides benefits in terms of long-term survival. Identification of patient subgroups that could benefit from surgical treatment is mandatory in a multidisciplinary setting.

1. Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fourth most common cancer worldwide and the second among cancer deaths [1]. Distant metastases are found in 30–35% of patients at their first clinical observation and they spread commonly to the liver (48% of metastatic cancer patients), peritoneum (32%), lung (15%), and bone (12%). Patients with stage IV GC have a median survival of 3 months, which is worst among those with bone and liver metastases (2 months) [2]. According to current guidelines, systemic chemotherapy is recommended as a single modality treatment for stage IV GC [3]. However, despite the development of new molecular targeting agents, the prognosis remains unsatisfactory, with a reported median overall survival (OS) of 13.8 months [4,5].
The role of surgical resection of GC metastases has always been debated. However, in the last 10 years, many studies showed encouraging results. Recently, Yoshida et al. proposed a new classification of stage IV GC, dividing the stage IV in four categories which results in different treatment approaches (Figure 1) [6]. Gastric cancer liver metastases (GCLM) without peritoneal carcinomatosis belong to categories 1 and 2; in those patients, the authors suggest using the so-called “conversion therapy”, which consists of intensive chemotherapy followed by adjuvant surgery if radical resection is achievable. In addition, the last revision of the Japanese Gastric Cancer guidelines stated that hepatectomy can be considered for a subset of patients such as cases with solitary liver metastasis [7]. This approach is also endorsed by the Italian Group on Gastric Cancer Research [8].
However, GC patients often present with metastases in multiple sites and only 0.4–1% of patients have liver metastases amenable to radical resection [7]. Most recent reports in the literature showed promising results after adopting aggressive multidisciplinary management, including surgery, to treat patients with GCLM [9].
In our study, we performed a systematic review of the literature of the last decade to evaluate the OS and disease-free survival (DFS) after hepatectomy for GCLM, and a meta-analysis of the prognostic factors, in order to clarify which patients would benefit more from surgical treatment.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic review protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): database registration number CRD42021218350 [10]. This study is reported in compliance with the Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement [11].

2.1. Criteria for Considering Studies for This Review

2.1.1. Type of Studies

We included prospective and retrospective studies reporting survival outcomes after hepatectomy for GCLM. We have selected only studies involving humans and available as full text in English published in the last decade. We excluded case reports, animal and other experimental, as well as purely imaging studies.

2.1.2. Type of Participants

We included studies where all participants who had hepatectomy for GCLM were eligible for upfront radical resection (R0) of both primary tumor and metastasis in the liver. In order to avoid selection bias, studies including participants with metastatic sites other than the liver were excluded.

2.1.3. Type of Interventions and Outcomes

We included only studies in which there were reported short-term outcomes (post-operative morbidity and 30-day mortality) and long-term outcomes (1-, 3-, 5-years OS and DFS) after hepatectomy for GCLM. We investigated the impact of the prognostic factors collected from the studies on OS and DFS.

2.2. Search Methods for Identification of Studies

2.2.1. Electronic Searches

Two independent reviewers (G.M. and F.S.) performed a systematic search of the literature, from January 2010 to September 2020. The authors did not consider previous articles as the management of gastric liver metastases has changed significantly over the last decade.
We searched the PubMed (Medline), Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases using MeSH and free text words (tw) for GC and liver metastases.
We performed the search using different combinations of the following keywords: “gastric AND cancer AND hepatectomy”, “gastric AND cancer AND metastases” “gastric AND cancer AND metastasectomy”, “stomach AND cancer AND hepatectomy”, “stomach AND cancer AND metastasectomy”. The same search was then repeated changing the word “cancer” with “carcinoma”, “cancer” with “neoplasm”, “metastases with “metastasis”, and “hepatectomy” with “liver resection”.

2.2.2. Searching Other Resources

We also checked the references of the selected studies in order to find further relevant trials.

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Two authors (G.M. and F.S.) independently selected studies and two authors (G.M. and A.T.) extracted data from those trials in a pre-piloted data extraction form created using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA).

Study Selection

Study selection was performed by first screening the titles and abstracts in order to exclude the studies that were clearly not eligible. Then, using the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the full texts of the studies were screened. Figure 2 illustrates the flow-chart diagram of the study selection.
Then, some papers were excluded after discussion between the two reviewers (G.M. and F.S.), because they were not strictly linked to the topic of the review.
Ethical approval and informed consent were not needed for this paper as per local rules at our institution.

2.4. Literature Search

2.4.1. Data Extraction and Management

Two independent reviewers performed data collection (G.M. and A.T.) and included the following data:
  • Year of publication.
  • Country of recruitment.
  • Study interval (year(s) in which the trial was conducted).
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
  • Population details, such as age, sex, characteristics of the primary tumor, and liver metastases.
  • Outcomes (mentioned in ‘Type of interventions and outcomes’).
  • Details of the prognostic factor(s).
The reviewer extract survival data from tables, directly from the text whenever possible or by manual interpolation in case of data available only in graphs. The clarification of unclear or missing information was done by direct contact with the authors of each study. We solved any differences in opinion through discussion.

2.4.2. Assessment of Risk of Bias in Included Studies

Due to the nature of this systematic review, the study quality or risk of bias was assessed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) classification only for descriptive purposes [12].

2.4.3. Data Synthesis

One, three, and five-year OS and DFS were calculated as the proportion of patients alive and free from the tumor at 1, 3, and 5 years and the total of patients included in the study. Median Survival Time (MST) was also calculated. StatsDirect Software (StatsDirect Ltd., Birkenhead, UK) was used to calculate the meta-analysis of proportion [13].
Hazard ratio (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to assess the impact on OS and DFS of the liver metastases related prognostic factors using the inverse variance method with Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration) [14].
The HR and its variance were obtained from the study or calculated according to the data presentation: annual mortality rates, survival curves, number of deaths, or percentage freedom from death [15].
A random-effects model was used to perform a meta-analysis due to the clinical heterogeneity among studies. Funnel plots were used to graphically represent publication bias and in order to find asymmetry and any outliers. Heterogeneity across the studies was assessed using the Cochran Q test and/or the I2 statistic to measure the degree of variation not attributable to chance alone. This was graded as low (I2 < 25%), moderate (I2 = 25% to 75%), or high (I2 > 75%) [16].
A significant p value < 0.05 was considered in order to assess statistically significant differences in each analysis. Forest plots showed the results of the current meta-analysis. Calculations were performed by A.T. and verified by G.M.

2.4.4. Subgroup Analysis

We performed a subgroup analysis of the OS and DFS based on ethnicity. One, three, and five-year OS and DFS were calculated as the proportion of patients alive and free from tumor at 1, 3, and 5 years and the total patients included in the study. StatsDirect Software was used to calculate the meta-analysis of proportion [17].

3. Results

We identified 2499 references through electronic searches of Medline (n = 1212), EMBASE (n = 551), and Google Scholar (n = 736). We excluded 2439 duplicates and clearly irrelevant references through reading the abstracts. The remaining 60 records were retrieved as full text for further assessment. Then, we discharged the other 4 references (for further details, see the section “Characteristic of excluded studies” below). At least, 40 studies were included in the study and were finally analyzed.

3.1. Characteristics of the Included Studies

The 40 included studies [8,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57] included 1573 participants who underwent hepatic resection for GCLM. All studies were reported in English. All studies were retrospective analyses. No prospective studies or randomized trials were found (Table 1 and Table 2). The majority of the studies were conducted in Asia (33 studies: 82.5%), whereas only 7 trials included data from Western countries (17.5%).
The median age of the whole population was 64 years old (range 30–89), the majority of whom were men (1050 participants, 66.8%). Two hundred eighty-five participants (30.3%) had pT1–2 and 656 (69.7%) pT3–4 gastric adenocarcinoma in 26 studies reporting this data. Four hundred twenty participants (37%) had pN0–1 and 714 (63%) pN2–3 gastric adenocarcinoma in 25 studies reporting this data. Lymphatic invasion was present in 230 patients (48%) included in 10 studies, whereas 216 patients (53.7%) included in 7 studies had a venous invasion. Nine studies reported the size of the primary tumor: 94 participants (37.3%) had primary tumor <5 cm and 158 (62.3%) >5 cm (median 5.2 cm). The tumor was poorly differentiated in 236 patients (16.4%), whereas it was well or moderately differentiated in 1201 (83.6%) participants in 19 studies reporting this data. Six hundred twelve participants (63.4%) underwent surgical resection for solitary hepatic metastasis and 354 (36.6%) were treated for multiple hepatic metastases in 27 studies reporting this data. Three hundred fifteen participants (78.5%) underwent surgical resection for unilobar hepatic metastases and 86 (21.5%) were treated for bilobar hepatic metastases in 13 studies reporting this data. Eight hundred seventy-six participants (62.3%) underwent surgical resection for synchronous liver metastases and 529 (37.7%) were treated for metachronous hepatic metastases in 33 studies reporting this data.
The median time between gastrectomy and the onset of hepatic metastases was 12.5 months (range 7–135) in 12 studies reporting this data.
The median size of the hepatic metastases was 28 mm (range 17–160 mm) and 52 participants (57.7%) had liver tumor >3 cm and 38 <3cm (42.3%) in 18 studies reporting this data. Seven hundred ninety-nine participants (77%) underwent minor hepatectomy and 239 (23%) major hepatectomy in 18 studies reporting this data. A total of 757 participants (86.3%) underwent R0 hepatic resection, 72 (8.2%) had R1 resection, and 48 (5.5%) R2 in 12 studies reporting this data.
One hundred fifty-one participants (12.3%) underwent neoadjuvant whereas 610 (48.6%) underwent adjuvant chemotherapy in 30 studies reporting this data.

3.2. Characteristics of the Excluded Studies, Risk of Bias, and Applicability Concerns

Three studies were excluded because authors included also patients with peritoneal metastasis [58,59,60].
Data from one study were excluded from all the analyses because the authors did not specify if the patients underwent liver resection or other treatments (Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), Microwave ablation, others) [60]. Data from 4 studies were included from the analysis of the short-term outcomes (morbidity and mortality) but excluded from the analysis of the OS, DFS, and the analysis of the prognostic factors because the authors did not specify if the patients underwent liver resection or other treatments [33,39,41,42].
All the studies included in the analysis had a type 2b quality of evidence, according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine scoring system.

3.3. Discrimination Results

3.3.1. Morbidity and Mortality

Surgical resection of GCLM was performed with 24.7% of morbidity from the 19 studies reporting this data (250/1011) and 1.6% of 30-day mortality from the 30 studies reporting this data (22/1338). Short- and long-term outcomes are shown in Table 3.

3.3.2. Survival Data

After a median follow-up of 26 months (range 8–77), the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS were 72% (range 66–77%), 37% (range 31–43%), and 26% (range 21–30%), respectively (Figure 3).
The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year DFS were 44% (range 40–48%), 24% (range 19–29%), and 22% (range 15–31%), respectively (Figure 4).
Subgroup meta-analyses based on ethnicity were performed (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Eastern studies showed better 1-year (75% vs. 59%), (HR 0.38, 0.29–0.49, p < 0.00001, I2 78.9%), 3-year (39% vs. 28%) (HR 0.44, 0.32–0.60, p < 0.00001, I2 72.3%), and 5 year (27% vs. 19%) (HR 0.36, 0.21–0.60, p = 0.0001, I2 66.2%) OS. The results of the DFS for Eastern and Western studies at 1 year (42% vs. 28%) (HR 1.26, 0.85–1.86, p = 0.25, I2 4.8%) and 3 years (25% vs. 21%) (HR 0.69, 0.43–1.11, p = 0.13, I2 46.2%) were similar, while the 5-year DFS was better in the Eastern studies (25% vs. 10%) (HR 0.29, 0.15–0.54, p = 0.0001, I2 77.9%).
The analysis of the funnel plots showed the presence of a slight asymmetry. However, even if the presence of a small study bias cannot be excluded at all, the data suggest that it seems unlikely.
Heterogeneity was significant, so the variability cannot be related only to ethnicity.

3.3.3. Analysis of Prognostic Factors

The results of the meta-analysis of prognostic factors are shown in Table 4 and Table 5.
Nevertheless, we could not include all the studies due to missing data. The analysis demonstrated that the primary cancer factors associated with higher OS were well-moderately differentiated tumors, pT1–2 and pN0–1 adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy was also a strong prognostic factor as well as R0 resections. Considering the burden of the disease, the presence of solitary metastasis, unilobar and metachronous metastases were all strongly positively associated with OS. On the contrary, older age, sex, size of primary tumor or metastasis, and the presence of lymphatic or venous invasion by the primary tumor were not significantly associated with OS.
The factors associated with a higher DFS were pT1–pT2 primary cancers, the absence of lymphatic invasion by the primary tumors, metachronous liver metastases, solitary metastasis, and the size of liver metastasis <3 cm. However, for the analysis of the prognostic factors related to DFS, less than 5 studies reported the results for each outcome.
The majority of the analyses had mild or low levels of heterogeneity, suggesting that the impact of those prognostic factors on OS and DFS is quite similar despite the well-known differences in the studies.

4. Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that surgical resection of GCLM, in the absence of peritoneal disease, is a safe procedure, with a 1.6% risk of mortality. It can achieve a 5-year OS of 26%. Those results are in line with the results of recent studies. Long et al., in a meta-analysis [61] of 39 studies, showed a 5-year OS rate of 27%. Similarly, Liao et al. [62], in a comparative analysis of 8 retrospective studies between hepatectomy and chemotherapy only, showed better OS in the surgical group with an odds ratio of 0.17 and 0.15 at 1 and 2 years. Up to now, no other meta-analysis has investigated DFS and prognostic factors related to DFS. We found that liver resection was associated with 5-year DFS of 22%.
Those positive results were particularly highlighted in the Asian studies. Historically, GC survival has always been substantially different in Asian and Western countries. However, results from recent systematic review and meta-analysis are discordant. While Gavriilidis et al. [63] showed no significant difference between Eastern and Western countries in terms of OS, Markar et al. [64] reported a better survival rate for the Eastern studies compared to Western. Furthermore, the results on this topic should be interpreted carefully due to differences between populations in terms of characteristics related to primary cancer, population screening, and dietary habits [65].
In clinical practice, patient selection is crucial in order to achieve acceptable mortality and morbidity. However, in addition to the importance of precision medicine, the role of a careful evaluation of each patient by multidisciplinary teams is improving. In fact, a multidisciplinary approach could increase the proportion of patients’ candidates to curative treatment also in the metastatic setting. In this context, tools to perform a better selection of candidates for hepatectomy, such as the assessment of patients’ performance status, hepatic invasiveness, and the feasibility of obtaining R0 resection, play a central role. Although there are still discordant results in the literature, we believe that radical resection of primary tumor and metastases is vital to achieve good outcomes.
Beom et al. demonstrated in a retrospective study the central role of conversion surgery following chemotherapy for 101 patients with metastatic GC [66]. In the trial, 65 patients (64.4%) had a major response and 11 patients (10.9%) received metastasectomy. Fifty-seven patients (56.4%) had a complete macroscopic resection, with a median survival of 26 months. The importance of R0 resection clearly emerged also in the study of Morgagni et al. [67], in which 11/54 metastatic GC underwent R0 resection. The authors concluded that conversion surgery in metastatic GC could be beneficial only if R0 resection could be achieved. We showed the same results in our analysis, with R1 resection strongly associated with poor OS and DFS. On the other hand, Cheon et al. [68] observed a similar survival rate after R0 or R1 resection, in contrast with our findings. However, the fact that a higher percentage of patients in the Korean series (88% vs. 27.6% in our series) received chemotherapy could be responsible for the differences in the outcomes, due to the positive impact of active treatment on survival. In general, in the case of synchronous disease, achieving an R0 resection both for primary tumor and for the hepatic metastases is recommend. Median survival exceeds 16 months after radical resections and drops to 6 months in case of R1 resections [8]. In our meta-analysis, R0 resection was found strongly associated with a better outcome, in terms of both OS and DFS. In addition to radical resection, other factors have been demonstrated to have a huge impact on prognosis.
In the study of Kinoshita et al. [35], a significant association with poor OS was found in the case of lymphatic and serosal invasion, when the liver metastases were more than 3, the maximum liver metastasis diameter was > 5 cm, or when there was high baseline CEA and CA19.9. Tiberio et al. [8], in an Italian cohort of 105 patients, showed that T-stage, R0 resection, and use of adjuvant chemotherapy were prognostic factors. Montangini et al. [69] showed that T and N staging, lymphovascular invasion of the primary tumor, and the burden of liver disease (i.e., number and diameter of the metastases) were strongly linked with survival. In particular, patients with involvement of the serosa or lymph nodes as well as with lymphovascular invasion had a poor prognosis. Otherwise, ≤3 liver metastases, tumor maximum diameter <5 cm, metachronous presentation, and R0 resections were linked to a better prognosis.
Other authors showed that some clinical and pathologic parameters, such as nodal status and histologic grade of the primary tumor, could impact the prognosis [48]. In this context, the lymph node ratio (number of metastatic lymph nodes on the number of the lymph nodes removed by surgery) is recognized to be an important factor linked to a poor prognosis among patients with GCLM who received combined surgical resection [70,71]. In fact, high lymph node ratio was significantly related to the more advanced pN stage, larger primary tumor dimension, microvascular invasion, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
In case of peritoneal involvement from GC, the survival is extremely poor. In those patients, hepatic resection does not add any benefit to survival [72,73]. For this reason, we excluded from the analysis the studies that included patients with peritoneal metastases.
Previous studies [22,56,74] have shown that the presence of multiple or synchronous liver metastases [74] were significant negative prognostic factors. However, in a recent meta-analysis, Cui et al. [75] showed that only the presence of synchronous GCLM was a negative prognostic factor, but they concluded that synchronous or multiple liver metastases should not be considered absolute contraindications for surgery.
Better survival could be obtained in presence of multiple scattered metastases in both lobes if R0 resection can be obtained [8]. In our study, the size of primary tumor and liver metastases were not unfavorable prognostic factors, as well as the presence of lymphatic or venous invasion by the primary tumor. However, we found that the best candidate for aggressive treatment is the patient with a well-moderately differentiated, pT1–2 and pN0–1 primary tumor and solitary, unilobar, and metachronous metastasis. Of course, R0 resection is vital in all cases.
Thus, three main treatment options have been identified for resectable GCLM: chemotherapy, upfront surgery, and preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery [76]. In Western countries, there is no difference in the treatment strategy in case of synchronous or metachronous GCLM, whereas in Japan, upfront surgery is the preferred treatment option for the synchronous disease. According to international guidelines [5,77], a multimodality approach based on preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery is considered the best treatment for both synchronous and metachronous resectable GCLM.
Although the REGATTA trial [77] is often cited in support of those guidelines, nowadays many oncologists still do not take the surgical approach into consideration in stage IV GC based on those results. In this phase 3 trial, 175 patients with GC and a single metastatic site confined to liver, peritoneum, or para-aortic lymph nodes were randomized to receive chemotherapy alone or gastrectomy followed by chemotherapy. The study failed to show an improvement in the survival of the experimental arm; additionally, it showed a detrimental effect of gastrectomy in this setting (median OS: 14.3 versus 16.6 months in the chemotherapy arm). However, those results should be interpreted with caution since two main concerns, at least, emerged: first, patients in the REGATTA trial did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy; second, the trial was designed to assess only the role of primary tumor site resection (gastrectomy with D1 lymphadenectomy) without any resection of metastatic lesions. That said, it is clear that the surgical treatment in the trial cannot be considered curative but only palliative. Additionally, in the trial, only 9% of the metastatic GC patients had a liver limited disease. Therefore, for all these reasons, the REGATTA trial should not be considered as strong evidence to discharge a multimodality strategy for patients with GCLM.
We believe that for surgeons a new era started since FLOT regimen (5FU, Folinic acid, Oxaliplatin, Docetaxel) was widely approved as the standard of care for advanced GC [78]. The neoadjuvant strategy was widely accepted for >T1N+, and oligometastatic GC has been increasingly recognized as a distinct clinical entity. It is characterized by limited metastatic spread and benefits from a multimodality strategy including chemotherapy and surgery [79]. Despite some limitations due to a non-randomized trial and a relatively small sample size, the phase 2 AIO/FLOT3 [58] showed an increased OS in oligometastatic GC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (FLOT schedule) followed surgery. The trial underlined the concept that a more aggressive treatment strategy including preoperative chemotherapy and surgical resection of metastases might have better results in terms of survival in this setting.
Still, open questions are unsolved on which sub-population could really benefit from this strategy. In this regard, the results of the ongoing phase 3 RENAISSANCE/AIO-FLOT5 trial (NCT02578368) [80] are awaited.
In general, our study showed some interesting results that support the new surgical trend of approaching GCLM. However, the importance of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the number of cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy should be taken into account. In our study, poor data were found for neoadjuvant CT to draw any firm conclusion, although, in our forest plot analysis regarding chemotherapy, including adjuvant and neoadjuvant, HR was 1.49 (p = 0.008). If we analyze separately, adjuvant chemotherapy had HR 1.5 (p = 0.01) instead of neoadjuvant CT with HR 1.39 (p = 0.34), therefore not significant (Figure 7, supplementary Figures S1–S25).
Systemic chemotherapy remains the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic GC and progression during chemotherapy is probably the most relevant contraindication for any surgical approach.
In a study focusing on GCLM responder to induction chemotherapy, an R0 resection rate of 100% was obtained in all patients who underwent radical gastric resection plus liver metastasectomy after Docetaxel-Cisplatin-5-FU (DCF) chemotherapy [81]. Kinoshita et al. [82] reported a case series of 18 patients with liver metastases from GC and treated with DCF. In this experience, the majority of patients underwent conversion gastrectomy after chemotherapy (11 patients; 5 patients received also liver metastasectomy), showing an improvement in MST and 3-years OS rate if compared to patients who did not receive surgery (MST: 18.9 vs. 15.6 months; 3-year OS rate: 40.4% vs. 27.5%)
Another retrospective case series including 29 patients with GCLM reported that six patients underwent conversion surgery after DCF chemotherapy (complete response in two patients), two patients received partial hepatectomies with a complete pathological response and two were treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) [83]. Additionally, Yamaguchi et al. [84] showed a conversion rate of 21.5% in patients with GCLM liver treated with chemotherapy and subsequent metastasectomy. Same results regarding the good impact of surgery on the survival of those patients were reported in different analyses [66].
Regarding morbidity, most of the studies included in our analysis did not specify if the complications were major or minor. The 30-day morbidity and mortality were 24.7% and 1.6%, respectively, in our study.
Low mortality rate and a limited morbidity rate are not requisites to push patients with GCLM towards a surgical strategy, but certainly these data, in agreement with our results in terms of OS and DFS, reinforce the importance of future randomized prospective studies, needed to validate this strategy and recognize subgroups of patients who can really benefit from it.
Like previous works available in the literature, our study has some limitations. First, all the studies included in the analysis are retrospective and characterized by heterogeneous patient groups. Then, the results may have been affected by selection, institutional and national bias, underpowered sample size, and smaller oncological burden.

5. Conclusions

Japanese guidelines have begun to change attitudes towards GCLM, reporting surgical resection as recommended for cases with small number of metastases with no other incurable factor even though with a weak level of evidence [7,85]. Our findings suggest the possibility of expanding surgical indications for patients with GCLM if R0 can be achieved, always in a multidisciplinary setting.
Resection of GCLM is feasible, and a benefit in terms of long-term survival emerged despite the current guidelines. Identification of patient subgroups that would benefit from surgery is mandatory and in a multidisciplinary setting, we should take into consideration the stage of primary cancer, mainly with regard to serosal infiltration and lymph node ratio, and the characteristics of the liver metastases. The presence of solitary or unilobar metastases are positive prognostic factors, whereas size does not matter if GCLM are resectable and R0 could be achieved. Pre- and postoperative chemotherapy plays a key role in the treatment of these patients, even though the role of neoadjuvant CT should be better investigated. The ongoing FLOT 5 trial and a prospective register in the coming years will specify these findings and probably will change the current guidelines. A European registry from which a randomized controlled trial could be developed is necessary in the near future.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/5/1141/s1, Figure S1: Forest plot of age related to OS; Figure S2: Forest of plot histology related to OS; Figure S3: Forest plot of lymphatic invasion related to OS; Figure S4: Forest plot of pN related to OS; Figure S5: Forest plot of pT related to OS; Figure S6: Forest plot of R0 related to OS; Figure S7: Forest plot of size liver mets related to OS; Figure S8: Forest plot of size primary tumor related to OS; Figure S9: Forest plot of solitary vs. multiple mets related to OS; Figure S10: Forest plot of synchronous vs. metachronous related to OS; Figure S11: Forest plot of unilobar vs. bilobar related to OS; Figure S12: Forest plot of venous invasion related to OS; Figure S13: Forest plot of sex related to OS; Figure S14: Forest plot of age related to DFS; Figure S15: Forest plot of histology related to DFS; Figure S16: Forest plot of lymphatic invasion related to DFS; Figure S17: Forest plot of pN related to DFS; Figure S18: Forest plot of pT related to DFS; Figure S19: Forest plot of size liver mets related to DFS; Figure S20: Forest plot of size primary tumor related to DFS; Figure S21: Forest plot of solitary vs. multiple mets related to DFS; Figure S22: Forest plot of synchronous vs. metachronous related to DFS; Figure S23: Forest plot of unilobar vs. bilobar related to DFS; Figure S24: Forest plot of venous invasion related to DFS. Figure S25: Forest plot of sex related to DFS.

Author Contributions

G.M. and F.S. contributed to the initial literature search for the content of the manuscript, filling the database, and design of the manuscript. A.T. and E.M. contributed significantly to the drafting of the manuscript, providing materials, and reviewing the English language. A.T. independently analyzed all the data and extracted the results. P.F., A.P., and P.M. gave a critical review of the content and were involved in the design of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final manuscript drafting. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethics approval was not required due to the retrospective nature of the analysis and quality of the article design.

Informed Consent Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Ethics Committee of our Hospital.

Conflicts of Interest

A.P. reported fees from Eli-Lilly, MSD, and Servier outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ferlay, J.; Shin, H.-R.; Bray, F.; Forman, D.; Mathers, C.; Parkin, D.M. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int. J. Cancer 2010, 127, 2893–2917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Riihimäki, M.; Hemminki, A.; Sundquist, K.; Sundquist, J.; Hemminki, K. Metastatic spread in patients with gastric cancer. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 52307–52316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Ajani, J.A.; D’Amico, T.A.; Almhanna, K.; Bentrem, D.J.; Chao, J.; Das, P.; Denlinger, C.S.; Fanta, P.; Farjah, F.; Fuchs, C.S.; et al. Gastric Cancer, Version 3.2016; Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2016, 14, 1286–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bang, Y.-J.; Van Cutsem, E.; Feyereislova, A.; Chung, H.C.; Shen, L.; Sawaki, A.; Lordick, F.; Ohtsu, A.; Omuro, Y.; Satoh, T.; et al. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): A phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010, 376, 687–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Smyth, E.C.; Verheij, M.; Allum, W.; Cunningham, D.; Cervantes, A.; Arnold, D. Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, v38–v49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yoshida, K.; Yamaguchi, K.; Okumura, N.; Tanahashi, T.; Kodera, Y. Is conversion therapy possible in stage IV gastric cancer: The proposal of new biological categories of classification. Gastric Cancer 2015, 19, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Kodera, Y.; Fujitani, K.; Fukushima, N.; Ito, S.; Muro, K.; Ohashi, N.; Yoshikawa, T.; Kobayashi, D.; Tanaka, C.; Fujiwara, M. Surgical resection of hepatic metastasis from gastric cancer: A review and new recommendation in the Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines. Gastric Cancer 2013, 17, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tiberio, G.; Ministrini, S.; Gardini, A.; Marrelli, D.; Marchet, A.; Cipollari, C.; Graziosi, L.; Pedrazzani, C.; Baiocchi, G.; La Barba, G.; et al. Factors influencing survival after hepatectomy for metastases from gastric cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 42, 1229–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gadde, R.; Tamariz, L.; Hanna, M.; Avisar, E.; Livingstone, A.; Franceschi, D.; Yakoub, D. Metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) patients: Can we improve survival by metastasectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 112, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Booth, A.; Clarke, M.; Dooley, G.; Ghersi, D.; Moher, D.; Petticrew, M.; Stewart, L. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: An international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2012, 1, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. For the PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339, b2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. University of Oxford. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group, “The Oxford Levels of Evidence 1”; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  13. Freemantle, N. CD: StatsDirect—Statistical Software for Medical Research in the 21st Century. BMJ 2000, 321, 1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer Program], version 5.3; Nordic Cochrane Centre: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  15. Parmar, M.K.B.; Torri, V.; Stewart, L. Extracting Summary Statistics to Perform Meta-Analyses of the Published Literature for Survival Endpoints. Stat. Med. 1998, 17, 2815–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1539–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. StatsDirect. StatsDirect Statistical Software. 2008. Available online: www.statsdirect.com (accessed on 26 November 2020).
  18. Makino, H.; Kunisaki, C.; Izumisawa, Y.; Tokuhisa, M.; Oshima, T.; Nagano, Y.; Fujii, S.; Kimura, J.; Takagawa, R.; Kosaka, T.; et al. Indication for hepatic resection in the treatment of liver metastasis from gastric cancer. Anticancer Res. 2010, 30, 2367–2376. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  19. TsujimotoTakashi, H.; Ichikura, T.; Ono, S.; Sugasawa, H.; Hiraki, S.; Sakamoto, N.; Yaguchi, Y.; Hatsuse, K.; Yamamoto, J.; Hase, K. Outcomes for patients following hepatic resection of metastatic tumors from gastric cancer. Hepatol. Int. 2010, 4, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Chen, L.; Song, M.-Q.; Lin, H.-Z.; Hao, L.-H.; Jiang, X.-J.; Li, Z.-Y.; Chen, Y.-X. Chemotherapy and resection for gastric cancer with synchronous liver metastases. World J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 19, 2097–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Qiu, J.-L.; Deng, M.-G.; Li, W.; Zou, R.-H.; Li, B.-K.; Zheng, Y.; Lao, X.-M.; Zhou, K.; Yuan, Y.-F. Hepatic resection for synchronous hepatic metastasis from gastric cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 39, 694–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Viganò, L.; Vellone, M.; Ferrero, A.; Giuliante, F.; Nuzzo, G.; Capussotti, L. Liver resection for gastric cancer metastases. Hepato Gastroenterol. 2013, 60, 557–562. [Google Scholar]
  23. Aizawa, M.; Nashimoto, A.; Yabusaki, H.; Nakagawa, S.; Matsuki, A. Clinical benefit of surgical management for gastric cancer with synchronous liver metastasis. Hepato Gastroenterol. 2014, 61, 1439–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Komeda, K.; Hayashi, M.; Kubo, S.; Nagano, H.; Nakai, T.; Kaibori, M.; Wada, H.; Takemura, S.; Kinoshita, M.; Koga, C.; et al. High Survival in Patients Operated for Small Isolated Liver Metastases from Gastric Cancer: A Multi-institutional Study. World J. Surg. 2014, 38, 2692–2697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, W.; Liang, H.; Zhang, H.; Wang, X.; Xue, Q.; Zhang, R. Prognostic significance of radical surgical treatment for gastric cancer patients with synchronous liver metastases. Med. Oncol. 2014, 31, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Guner, A.; Son, T.; Cho, I.; Kwon, I.G.; An, J.Y.; Kim, H.-I.; Cheong, J.-H.; Noh, S.H.; Hyung, W.J. Liver-directed treatments for liver metastasis from gastric adenocarcinoma: Comparison between liver resection and radiofrequency ablation. Gastric Cancer 2016, 19, 951–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kinoshita, T.; Saiura, A.; Esaki, M.; Sakamoto, H.; Yamanaka, T. Multicentre analysis of long-term outcome after surgical resection for gastric cancer liver metastases. BJS 2014, 102, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Li, Z.; Fan, B.; Shan, F.; Tang, L.; Bu, Z.; Wu, A.; Zhang, L.; Wu, X.; Zong, X.; Li, S.; et al. Gastrectomy in comprehensive treatment of advanced gastric cancer with synchronous liver metastasis: A prospectively comparative study. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 13, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Liu, Q.; Bi, J.-J.; Tian, Y.-T.; Feng, Q.; Zheng, Z.-X.; Wang, Z. Outcome after Simultaneous Resection of Gastric Primary Tumour and Synchronous Liver Metastases: Survival Analysis of a Single-center Experience in China. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2015, 16, 1665–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Dittmar, Y.; Altendorf-Hofmann, A.; Rauchfuss, F.; Götz, M.; Scheuerlein, H.; Jandt, K.; Settmacher, U. Resection of liver metastases is beneficial in patients with gastric cancer: Report on 15 cases and review of literature. Gastric Cancer 2011, 15, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ohkura, Y.; Shinohara, H.; Haruta, S.; Ueno, M.; Hashimoto, M.; Sakai, Y.; Udagawa, H. Hepatectomy Offers Superior Survival Compared with Non-surgical Treatment for ≤3 Metastatic Tumors with Diameters. World J. Surg. 2015, 39, 2757–2763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shinohara, T.; Maeda, Y.; Hamada, T.; Futakawa, N. Survival Benefit of Surgical Treatment for Liver Metastases from Gastric Cancer. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2015, 19, 1043–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Markar, S.R.; MacKenzie, H.; Mikhail, S.; Mughal, M.; Preston, S.R.; Maynard, N.D.; Faiz, O.; Hanna, G.B. Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from gastric cancer: Outcomes from national series in England. Gastric Cancer 2017, 20, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Oguro, S.; Imamura, H.; Yoshimoto, J.; Ishizaki, Y.; Kawasaki, S. Liver metastases from gastric cancer represent systemic disease in comparison with those from colorectal cancer. J. Hepato Biliary Pancreat. Sci. 2016, 23, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Tatsubayashi, T.; Tanizawa, Y.; Miki, Y.; Tokunaga, M.; Bando, E.; Kawamura, T.; Sugiura, T.; Kinugasa, Y.; Uesaka, K.; Terashima, M. Treatment outcomes of hepatectomy for liver metastases of gastric cancer diagnosed using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Gastric Cancer 2017, 20, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Fukami, Y.; Kaneoka, Y.; Maeda, A.; Takayama, Y.; Takahashi, T.; Uji, M.; Kumada, T. Adjuvant hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy after hemihepatectomy for gastric cancer liver metastases. Int. J. Surg. 2017, 46, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lee, J.W.; Choi, M.H.; Lee, Y.J.; Ali, B.; Yoo, H.M.; Song, K.Y.; Park, C.H. Radiofrequency ablation for liver metastases in patients with gastric cancer as an alternative to hepatic resection. BMC Cancer 2017, 17, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Li, J.; Xi, H.; Cui, J.; Zhang, K.; Gao, Y.; Liang, W.; Cai, A.; Wei, B.; Chen, L. Minimally invasive surgery as a treatment option for gastric cancer with liver metastasis: A comparison with open surgery. Surg. Endosc. 2017, 32, 1422–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Li, S.C.; Lee, C.H.; Hung, C.L.; Wu, J.C.; Chen, J.H. Surgical resection of metachronous hepatic metastases from gastric cancer improves long-term survival: A population-based study. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0182255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ryu, T.; Takami, Y.; Wada, Y.; Tateishi, M.; Matsushima, H.; Yoshitomi, M.; Saitsu, H. Oncological outcomes after hepatic resection and/or surgical microwave ablation for liver metastasis from gastric cancer. Asian J. Surg. 2019, 42, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Garancini, M.; Uggeri, F.; Degrate, L.; Nespoli, L.; Gianotti, L.; Nespoli, A.; Uggeri, F.; Romano, F. Surgical treatment of liver metastases of gastric cancer: Is local treatment in a systemic disease worthwhile? HPB 2012, 14, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Song, A.; Zhang, X.; Yu, F.; Li, D.; Shao, W.; Zhou, Y. Surgical resection for hepatic metastasis from gastric cancer: A multi-institution study. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 71147–71153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Ministrini, S.; Solaini, L.; Cipollari, C.; Sofia, S.; Marino, E.; D’Ignazio, A.; Bencivenga, M.; Tiberio, G.A.M. Surgical treatment of hepatic metastases from gastric cancer. Updates Surg. 2018, 70, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Nishi, M.; Shimada, M.; Yoshikawa, K.; Higashijima, J.; Tokunaga, T.; Kashihara, H.; Takasu, C.; Ishikawa, D.; Wada, Y.; Eto, S. Results of Hepatic Resection for Liver Metastasis of Gastric Cancer—A single center experience. J. Med. Investig. 2018, 65, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Shirasu, H.; Tsushima, T.; Kawahira, M.; Kawai, S.; Kawakami, T.; Kito, Y.; Yoshida, Y.; Hamauchi, S.; Todaka, A.; Yokota, T.; et al. Role of hepatectomy in gastric cancer with multiple liver-limited metastases. Gastric Cancer 2017, 21, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Gao, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, F.; Zhu, Z.; Han, B.; Wang, R.; Xie, R.; Xue, Y. Prognostic Nutritional Index and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Are Respectively Associated with Prognosis of Gastric Cancer with Liver Metatasis Undergoing and without Hepatectomy. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 4213623–4213627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Nonaka, Y.; Hiramatsu, K.; Kato, T.; Shibata, Y.; Yoshihara, M.; Aoba, T.; Kamiya, T. Evaluation of Hepatic Resection in Liver Metastasis of Gastric Cancer. Indian J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 10, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Kawahara, K.; Makino, H.; Kametaka, H.; Hoshino, I.; Fukada, T.; Seike, K.; Kawasaki, Y.; Otsuka, M. Outcomes of surgical resection for gastric cancer liver metastases: A retrospective analysis. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Tang, K.; Zhang, B.; Dong, L.; Wang, L.; Tang, Z. Radiofrequency ablation versus traditional liver resection and chemotherapy for liver metastases from gastric cancer. J. Int. Med. Res. 2020, 48, 300060520940509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Ceniceros, L.; Chopitea, A.; Pardo, F.; Rotellar, F.; Arbea, L.; Sangro, B.; Benito, A.; Rodríguez, J.; Sola, J.J.; Subtil, J.C.; et al. Intensified neoadjuvant multimodal approach in synchronous liver metastases from gastric cancer: A single institutional experience. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2017, 20, 658–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, J.; Li, J.-H.; Zhai, R.-J.; Wei, B.; Shao, M.-Z.; Chen, L. Predictive factors improving survival after gastric and hepatic surgical treatment in gastric cancer patients with synchronous liver metastases. Chin. Med. J. 2012, 125, 165–171. [Google Scholar]
  52. Miki, Y.; Fujitani, K.; Hirao, M.; Kurokawa, Y.; Mano, M.; Tsujie, M.; Miyamoto, A.; Nakamori, S.; Tsujinaka, T. Significance of surgical treatment of liver metastases from gastric cancer. Anticancer Res. 2012, 32, 665–670. [Google Scholar]
  53. Schildberg, C.W.; Croner, R.; Merkel, S.; Schellerer, V.; Müller, V.; Yedibela, S.; Hohenberger, W.; Peros, G.; Perrakis, A. Outcome of Operative Therapy of Hepatic Metastatic Stomach Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis. World J. Surg. 2012, 36, 872–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Takemura, N.; Saiura, A.; Koga, R.; Arita, J.; Yoshioka, R.; Ono, Y.; Hiki, N.; Sano, T.; Yamamoto, J.; Kokudo, N.; et al. Long-term outcomes after surgical resection for gastric cancer liver metastasis: An analysis of 64 macroscopically complete resections. Langenbeck Arch. Surg. 2012, 397, 951–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wang, Y.-N.; Shen, K.-T.; Ling, J.-Q.; Gao, X.-D.; Hou, Y.-Y.; Wang, X.-F.; Qin, J.; Sun, Y.-H.; Qin, X.-Y. Prognostic analysis of combined curative resection of the stomach and liver lesions in 30 gastric cancer patients with synchronous liver metastases. BMC Surg. 2012, 12, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Baek, H.-U.; Kim, S.B.; Cho, E.-H.; Jin, S.-H.; Yu, H.J.; Lee, J.-I.; Bang, H.-Y.; Lim, C.-S. Hepatic Resection for Hepatic Metastases from Gastric Adenocarcinoma. J. Gastric Cancer 2013, 13, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Choi, S.B.; Song, J.; Kang, C.M.; Hyung, W.J.; Kim, K.S.; Choi, J.S.; Lee, W.J.; Noh, S.H.; Kim, C.B. Surgical outcome of metachronous hepatic metastases secondary to gastric cancer. Hepato Gastroenterol. 2010, 57, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
  58. Al-Batran, S.-E.; Homann, N.; Pauligk, C.; Illerhaus, G.; Martens, U.M.; Stoehlmacher, J.; Schmalenberg, H.; Luley, K.B.; Prasnikar, N.; Egger, M.; et al. Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgical Resection on Survival in Patients With Limited Metastatic Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017, 3, 1237–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kokkola, A.; Louhimo, J.; Puolakkainen, P. Does non-curative gastrectomy improve survival in patients with metastatic gastric cancer? J. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 106, 193–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Oki, E.; Kyushu Study Group of Clinical Cancer; Tokunaga, S.; Emi, Y.; Kusumoto, T.; Yamamoto, M.; Fukuzawa, K.; Takahashi, I.; Ishigami, S.; Tsuji, A.; et al. Surgical treatment of liver metastasis of gastric cancer: A retrospective multicenter cohort study (KSCC1302). Gastric Cancer 2016, 19, 968–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Long, D.; Yu, P.-C.; Huang, W.; Luo, Y.-L.; Zhang, S. Systematic review of partial hepatic resection to treat hepatic metastases in patients with gastric cancer. Medicine 2016, 95, e5235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liao, Y.-Y.; Peng, N.-F.; Long, D.; Yu, P.-C.; Zhang, S.; Zhong, J.-H.; Li, L.-Q. Hepatectomy for liver metastases from gastric cancer: A systematic review. BMC Surg. 2017, 17, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Gavriilidis, P.; Roberts, K.J.; De’Angelis, N.; Sutcliffe, R.P. Gastrectomy Alone or in Combination with Hepatic Resection in the Management of Liver Metastases from Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review Using an Updated and Cumulative Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. Res. 2019, 11, 600–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Markar, S.R.; Mikhail, S.; Malietzis, G.; Athanasiou, T.; Mariette, C.; Sasako, M.; Hanna, G.B. Influence of Surgical Resection of Hepatic Metastases from Gastric Adenocarcinoma on Long-term Survival. Ann. Surg. 2016, 263, 1092–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Griniatsos, J.; Trafalis, D. Differences in gastric cancer surgery outcome between East and West: Differences in surgery or different diseases? J. Buon 2018, 23, 1210–1215. [Google Scholar]
  66. Beom, S.-H.; Choi, Y.Y.; Baek, S.-E.; Li, S.-X.; Lim, J.S.; Son, T.; Kim, H.-I.; Cheong, J.-H.; Hyung, W.J.; Choi, S.H.; et al. Multidisciplinary treatment for patients with stage IV gastric cancer: The role of conversion surgery following chemotherapy. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Morgagni, P.; Solaini, L.; Framarini, M.; Vittimberga, G.; Gardini, A.; Tringali, D.; Valgiusti, M.; Monti, M.; Ercolani, G. Conversion surgery for gastric cancer: A cohort study from a western center. Int. J. Surg. 2018, 53, 360–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Cheon, S.H.; Rha, S.Y.; Jeung, H.-C.; Im, C.-K.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, H.R.; Ahn, J.B.; Roh, J.K.; Noh, S.H.; Chung, H.C. Survival benefit of combined curative resection of the stomach (D2 resection) and liver in gastric cancer patients with liver metastases. Ann. Oncol. 2008, 19, 1146–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Montagnani, F.; Crivelli, F.; Aprile, G.; Vivaldi, C.; Pecora, I.; De Vivo, R.; Clerico, M.A.; Fornaro, L. Long-term survival after liver metastasectomy in gastric cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factors. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2018, 69, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Kurokawa, Y.; Shibata, T.; Sasako, M.; Sano, T.; Tsuburaya, A.; Iwasaki, Y.; Fukuda, H. Validity of response assessment criteria in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer (JCOG0507-A). Gastric Cancer 2013, 17, 514–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Li, M.-X.; Jin, Z.-X.; Zhou, J.-G.; Ying, J.-M.; Liang, Z.-Y.; Mao, X.-X.; Bi, X.-Y.; Zhao, J.-J.; Li, Z.-Y.; Huang, Z.; et al. Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Ratio in Patients Receiving Combined Surgical Resection for Gastric Cancer Liver Metastasis. Medicine 2016, 95, e3395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Schmidt, B.; Look-Hong, N.; Maduekwe, U.N.; Chang, K.; Hong, T.S.; Kwak, E.L.; Lauwers, G.Y.; Rattner, D.W.; Mullen, J.T.; Yoon, S.S. Noncurative Gastrectomy for Gastric Adenocarcinoma Should only be Performed in Highly Selected Patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 20, 3512–3518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ambiru, S.; Miyazaki, M.; Ito, H.; Nakagawa, K.; Shimizu, H.; Yoshidome, H.; Shimizu, Y.; Nakajima, N. Benefits and limits of hepatic resection for gastric metastases. Am. J. Surg. 2001, 181, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sakamoto, Y.; Sano, T.; Shimada, K.; Esaki, M.; Saka, M.; Fukagawa, T.; Katai, H.; Kosuge, T.; Sasako, M. Favorable indications for hepatectomy in patients with liver metastasis from gastric cancer. J. Surg. Oncol. 2007, 95, 534–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Cui, J.-K.; Liu, M.; Shang, X.-K. Hepatectomy for Liver Metastasis of Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Surg. Innov. 2019, 26, 692–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kataoka, K.; Kinoshita, T.; Moehler, M.; Mauer, M.; Shitara, K.; Wagner, A.D.; Schrauwen, S.; Yoshikawa, T.; Roviello, F.; Tokunaga, M.; et al. Current management of liver metastases from gastric cancer: What is common practice? New challenge of EORTC and JCOG. Gastric Cancer 2017, 20, 904–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Fujitani, K.; Yang, H.-K.; Mizusawa, J.; Kim, Y.-W.; Terashima, M.; Han-Kwang, Y.; Iwasaki, Y.; Hyung, W.J.; Takagane, A.; Park, D.J.; et al. Gastrectomy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric cancer with a single non-curable factor (REGATTA): A phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Al-Batran, S.-E.; Hartmann, J.T.; Hofheinz, R.; Homann, N.; Rethwisch, V.; Probst, S.; Stoehlmacher, J.; Clemens, M.R.; Mahlberg, R.; Fritz, M.; et al. Biweekly fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction: A phase II trial of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie. Ann. Oncol. 2008, 19, 1882–1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Salati, M.; Valeri, N.; Spallanzani, A.; Braconi, C.; Cascinu, S. Oligometastatic gastric cancer: An emerging clinical entity with distinct therapeutic implications. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 45, 1479–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Al-Batran, S.-E.; Goetze, T.O.; Mueller, D.W.; Vogel, A.; Winkler, M.; Lorenzen, S.; Novotny, A.; Pauligk, C.; Homann, N.; Jungbluth, T.; et al. The RENAISSANCE (AIO-FLOT5) trial: Effect of chemotherapy alone vs. chemotherapy followed by surgical resection on survival and quality of life in patients with limited-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction—A phase III trial of the German AIO/CAO-V/CAOGI. BMC Cancer 2017, 17, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Han, D.-S.; Suh, Y.-S.; Kong, S.-H.; Lee, H.-J.; Im, S.-A.; Bang, Y.-J.; Kim, W.-H.; Yang, H.-K. Outcomes of surgery aiming at curative resection in good responder to induction chemotherapy for gastric cancer with distant metastases. J. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 107, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kinoshita, J.; Fushida, S.; Tsukada, T.; Oyama, K.; Okamoto, K.; Makino, I.; Nakamura, K.; Miyashita, T.; Tajima, H.; Takamura, H.; et al. Efficacy of conversion gastrectomy following docetaxel, cisplatin, and S-1 therapy in potentially resectable stage IV gastric cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 41, 1354–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Sato, Y.; Ohnuma, H.; Nobuoka, T.; Hirakawa, M.; Sagawa, T.; Fujikawa, K.; Takahashi, Y.; Shinya, M.; Katsuki, S.; Takahashi, M.; et al. Conversion therapy for inoperable advanced gastric cancer patients by docetaxel, cisplatin, and S-1 (DCS) chemotherapy: A multi-institutional retrospective study. Gastric Cancer 2017, 20, 517–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Yamaguchi, K.; Yoshida, K.; Tanahashi, T.; Takahashi, T.; Matsuhashi, N.; Tanaka, Y.; Tanabe, K.; Ohdan, H. The long-term survival of stage IV gastric cancer patients with conversion therapy. Gastric Cancer 2017, 21, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Ma, G. Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines 2018, 5th edition. Gastric Cancer 2020, 24, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Jcm 10 01141 g001 550
Figure 1. Yoshida categories for stage IV gastric cancer (GC).
Figure 1. Yoshida categories for stage IV gastric cancer (GC).
Jcm 10 01141 g001
Jcm 10 01141 g002 550
Figure 2. Flow-chart diagram of the study selection.
Figure 2. Flow-chart diagram of the study selection.
Jcm 10 01141 g002
Jcm 10 01141 g003 550
Figure 3. Overall survival results. (A): 1-year OS, (B): 3-years OS, (C): 5-year OS.
Figure 3. Overall survival results. (A): 1-year OS, (B): 3-years OS, (C): 5-year OS.
Jcm 10 01141 g003
Jcm 10 01141 g004 550
Figure 4. Disease-free survival results. (A): 1-year DFS, (B): 3-year-DFS, (C): 5-year DFS.
Figure 4. Disease-free survival results. (A): 1-year DFS, (B): 3-year-DFS, (C): 5-year DFS.
Jcm 10 01141 g004
Jcm 10 01141 g005 550
Figure 5. Overall survival according to subgroup analysis (Asian versus Western countries). (A): 1-year OS West, (B): 3-year OS West, (C): 5-year OS West, (D):1-year OS East, (E): 3-year OS East, (F): 5-year OS East.
Figure 5. Overall survival according to subgroup analysis (Asian versus Western countries). (A): 1-year OS West, (B): 3-year OS West, (C): 5-year OS West, (D):1-year OS East, (E): 3-year OS East, (F): 5-year OS East.
Jcm 10 01141 g005
Jcm 10 01141 g006 550
Figure 6. Disease-free survival according to subgroup analysis (Asian versus Western countries). (A): 1-year DFS West, (B): 3-year DFS West, (C): 5-year DFS West, (D): 1-year DFS East, (E): 3-year DFS East, (F): 5-year DFS East.
Figure 6. Disease-free survival according to subgroup analysis (Asian versus Western countries). (A): 1-year DFS West, (B): 3-year DFS West, (C): 5-year DFS West, (D): 1-year DFS East, (E): 3-year DFS East, (F): 5-year DFS East.
Jcm 10 01141 g006
Jcm 10 01141 g007 550
Figure 7. Forest plot showing the impact of chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). (A): Forest plot Chemotherapy related to OS (B): Forest plot Chemotherapy related to DFS.
Figure 7. Forest plot showing the impact of chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). (A): Forest plot Chemotherapy related to OS (B): Forest plot Chemotherapy related to DFS.
Jcm 10 01141 g007
Table
Table 1. Patient characteristics according to the primary tumor.
Table 1. Patient characteristics according to the primary tumor.
Author YearCountryStudy DesignStudy IntervalN. PatientsMedian AgeFemale/MalepT1–2/pT3–4pN0–1/pN2–3Lymphatic InvasionVenous InvasionPrimary Tumor Median Size (cm)Histology Well-Moderate/Poor Differentiated
Choi 2010 [57]KoreaRetro1986–20071465NRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Makino 2010 [18]JapanRetro1992–200716NR3/13NR/8NR/131214NR8/8
Tsujimoto 2010 [19]JapanRetro1980–200717661/1612/512/5895.7NR
Dittmar 2012 [30]GermanyRetro1995–20091057NRNRNR11NRNRNR
Garancini 2012 [41]ItalyRetro1998–200721647/14NR/819/11NR13NR8/13
Liu J. 2012 [51]ChinaRetro1995–201035NR8/2919/1612/2310NRNR0/25
Miki 2012 [52]JapanRetro1995–200925722/238/1714/11NRNRNRNR
Schildberg 2012 [53]GermanyRetro1972–2008316511/20NRNRNRNRNRNR
Takemura 2012 [54]JapanRetro1993–2011646549/15NR/4922/42NRNRNR42/22
Wang Y.N. 2012 [55]ChinaRetro2003–200830603/274/2610/20NRNR3.7NR
Baek 2013 [56]Korea Retro2003–201012611/113/99/372NR9/1
Chen 2013 [20]ChinaRetro2007–201220548/126/1412/8NRNRNR16/4
Qiu 2013 [21]ChinaRetro1998–200925NR3/2217/84/21NRNRNR9/16
Vigano 2013 [22]ItalyRetro1997–20081461.5NRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Aizawa 2014 [23]JapanRetro1997–2010746618/56NRNRNRNRNRNR
Komeda 2014 [24]JapanRetro2000–20122469.53/2117/710/14NRNRNRNR
Wang W. 2014 [25]ChinaRetro1996–2008396413/268/3123/16NRNRNR23/16
Guner 2015 [26]KoreaRetro1998–2013686112/5617/5232/363536NRNR
Kinoshita 2015 [27]JapanRetro1990–20102566449/2077454/204105129NR173/NR
Li Z. 2015 [28]ChinaRetro2008–201113NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Liu Q. 2015 [29]ChinaRetro1990–2009355613/226/294/3120NRNR15/20
Ohkura 2015 [31]JapanRetro1985–201413630/13NRNRNRNRNRNR
Shinohara 2015 [32]JapanRetro1995–201018NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Markar 2016 [33]UKRetro1997–2012786551/7NRNRNRNRNRNR
Oguro 2016 [34]JapanRetro2002–20122669.53/238/18NR/8NRNRNR18/8
Tatsubayashi 2016 [35]JapanRetro2004–201428725/238/203/25NRNR5.622/6
Tiberio 2016 [8]ItalyRetro1990–20131056834/7138/4636/40NRNRNRNR
Fukami 2017 [36]JapanRetro2001–201214663/112/12NR/11NRNRNR11/3
Lee J.W. 2017 [37]KoreaRetro2000–2014759.22/5NRNRNRNRNRNR
Li J. 2017 [38]ChinaRetro2006–201630NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Li S.C. 2017 [39]TaiwanRetro1996–2012346211/23NRNRNRNRNRNR
Ryu 2017 [40]JapanRetro1997–200514NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Song 2017 [42]ChinaRetro2001–2012966324/7247/5928/68NRNRNR62/34
Ministrini 2018 [43]ItalyRetro1990–20171446850/9423/9348/68NRNRNR13/22
Nishi 2018 [44]JapanRetro2001–20131071.71/98/2NRNRNRNRNR
Shirasu 2018 [45]JapanRetro2004–20159741/8NRNRNRNRNR9/NR
Gao 2019 [50]ChinaRetro1975–2013545711/4329/2518/36NRNRNRNR
Nonaka 2019 [51]JapanRetro201610681/93/77/38NRNRNR
Kawahara 2020 [48]JapanRetro2006–20162073.57/13NR/48/121413NR14/3
Tang 2020 [49]ChinaRetro2008–201820614/162/1810/10NRNRNR0/12
Abbreviations: retro: retrospective; NR: not reported.
Table
Table 2. Patient Characteristics according to liver metastases.
Table 2. Patient Characteristics according to liver metastases.
Author YearSynchronous/MetachronousSolitary/MultipleUnilobar/BilobarMedian Size Liver Metastases (mm)Minor/Major HepatectomyR0/R1/R2 Liver Resection MarginNeoadjuvant/Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Choi 2010 [57]0/149/5NRNRNRNRNR
Makino 2010 [18]9/79/711/5NR14/2NR5/9
Tsujimoto 2010 [19]9/813/4NR48NRNR0/14
Dittmar 2012 [30]NRNRNR268/2NR0/NR
Garancini 2012 [41]12/912/916/53017/419/2/0NR
Liu J 2012 [51]NRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Miki 2012 [52]16/918/720/520NRNR0/10
Schildberg 2012 [53]17/14NRNRNR21/1023/3/52/9
Takemura 2012 [54]32/3237/27NRNR50/1455/9/018/26
Wang Y.N. 2012 [55]30/022/827/33123/7NR0/30
Baek 2013 [56]3/910/1NRNR9/311/1/0NR/6
Chen 2013 [20]20/08/1211/9416/14NR20/20
Qiu 2013 [21]25/019/621/420NRNR4/14
Vigano 2013 [22]9/59/5NRNRNRNR8/0
Aizawa 2014 [23]74/0NRNRNRNR53/0/21NR
Komeda 2014 [24]1/2317/NRNRNRNR11/15
Wang W. 2014 [25]39/031/834/528NRNR0/39
Guner 2015 [26]26/4245/2360/82747/21NR0/66
Kinoshita 2015 [27]106/150168/88NR30183/73230/26/045/84
Li Z. 2015 [28]13/0NRNRNRNRNR13/NR
Liu Q. 2015 [29]35/027/830/5NR29/630/5/00/35
Ohkura 2015 [31]9/44/9NRNRNRNR0/12
Shinohara 2015 [32]NRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Markar 2016 [33]78/0NRNRNR66/12NRNR
Oguro 2016 [34]6/2016/10NR37NRNRNR
Tatsubayashi 2016 [35]15/1320/8NR24.527/1NR3/12
Tiberio 2016 [8]74/31NRNRNR94/1189/7/90/29
Fukami 2017 [36]1/139/5NR28NRNRNR/14
Lee J.W. 2017 [37]NR5/26/1NRNRNR0/6
Li J. 2017 [38]NRNRNRNRNR30/0/0NR
Li S.C. 2017 [39]0/34NRNRNRNRNRNR
Ryu 2017 [40]NRNRNR427/7NRNR
Song 2017 [42]59/3742/5457/29NR61/3591/5/00/58
Ministrini 2018 [43]112/32NRNRNR132/12117/14/1320/32
Nishi 2018 [44]6/46/4NR23.55/5NR2/6
Shirasu 2018 [45]6/30/95/425NR9/0/0NR/3
Gao 2019 [50]NR38/16NRNRNRNR0/24
Nonaka 2019 [51]4/67/3NRNRNRNR0/0
Kawahara 2020 [48]11/911/9NR25NRNR0/20
Tang 2020 [49]19/1NR17/329NRNR0/17
Abbreviations: NR: not reported.
Table
Table 3. Short- and long-term outcomes after hepatectomy.
Table 3. Short- and long-term outcomes after hepatectomy.
Author YearPost-Operative Morbidity (%)Post-Operative 30-Day Mortality (%)Overall SurvivalDisease-Free Survival
1 Year (%)3 Years (%)5 Years (%)MST (Months)1 Year (%)3 Years (%)5 Years (%)MST (Months)
Choi 2010 [57]NRNR6738.3NRNR28.5NRNRNR
Makino 2010 [18]NR082.346.437.131.2NRNRNRNR
Tsujimoto 2010 [19]NRNR7537.531.534NRNRNRNR
Dittmar 2012 [30]NR0NRNRNRNRNRNR NR NR
Garancini 2012 [41]19068311911512514NR
Liu J. 2012 [51]NRNR58.121.7NR15NRNRNRNR
Miki 2012 [52]NRNR73.942.836.733.4NRNRNR5
Schildberg 2012 [53]296NRNR13NRNRNRNRNR
Takemura 2012 [54]270845037344227279
Wang Y.N. 2012 [55]13043.316.716.711NRNRNRNR
Baek 2013 [56]NR065NR3931NRNRNRNR
Chen 2013 [20]NR0NRNR1522.3NRNRNRNR
Qiu 2013 [21]NR09670.429.4385622.311.118
Vigano 2013 [22]4009563.233.252.3NRNRNRNR
Aizawa 2014 [23]NR0NRNR1713NRNRNRNR
Komeda 2014 [24]NR078.340.140.122.3NRNRNRNR
Wang W 2014 [25]8056.417.910.31430.810.37.78
Guner 2015 [26]28179.140.6302449.330.426NR
Kinoshita 2015 [27]11277.341.931.131.143.632.430.19.4
Li Z. 2015 [28]NRNRNRNRNR16.3NRNRNRNR
Liu Q. 2015 [29]60NRNR14.333NRNRNRNR
Ohkura 2015 [31]NR0NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
Shinohara 2015 [32]NR0NRNRNRNRNRNR NR NR
Markar 2016 [33]NR1064.1NR38.5NRNRNRNRNR
Oguro 2016 [34]NRNRNRNR13.920.1NRNRNR16.8
Tatsubayashi 2016 [35]40NRNR3249NRNR29NR
Tiberio 2016 [8]13158.220.313.114.64820.28.610
Fukami 2017 [36]21071.442.942.927.9NRNRNRNR
Lee J.W. 2017 [37]29NRNRNR68.667.5NRNR8074.1
Li J. 2017 [38]NR0--------
Li S.C. 2017 [39]NRNR73.536.924.526.16NRNRNRNR
Ryu 2017 [40]NR084.651.351.3NRNRNRNRNR
Song 2017 [42]55087.547.621.734NRNRNRNR
Ministrini 2018 [43]22249.519.411.612NRNRNRNR
Nishi 2018 [44]10088.917.8NR21.520NRNR4.7
SHIRASU 2018 [45]440NRNRNR24.8NRNRNR7.9
Gao 2019 [50]NRNR77.83725.929.3NRNRNRNR
Nonaka 2019 [51]NRNR7833.322.23044.422.222.2NR
Kawahara 2020 [48]008055.531.74235241810.5
Tang 2020 [49]2515NR23.5NR20NR23.5NRNR
Abbreviations: MST: median survival time; NR: not reported.
Table
Table 4. Analysis of prognostic factors related to overall survival.
Table 4. Analysis of prognostic factors related to overall survival.
Prognostic FactorN. of StudiesParticipantsHR (95% CI)pI2
Male sex167880.86 (0.68–1.09)0.210%
Age >65 198960.86 (0.49–1.51)0.6094%
Synchronous liver metastases147301.62 (1.17–2.25)0.00462%
Multiple liver metastases177881.66 (1.44–1.91)<0.000014%
Bilobar liver metastases94951.96 (1.34–2.87)0.000569%
>3 cm liver metastases198032.39 (1.14–5.04)0.0298%
R + liver resection margin64004.15 (2.37–7.26)<0.0000133%
Chemotherapy before/after liver resection117811.49 (1.11–1.99)0.00873%
Primary tumor Size >5 cm71791.50 (0.99–2.26)0.0614%
pT3–42110841.77 (1.31–2.41)0.000251%
pN2–3167501.54 (1.28–1.85)<0.0000111%
Lymphatic invasion present94671.28 (0.96–1.70)0.0972%
Venous invasion present73641.23 (0.93–1.62)0.150%
Primary tumor poorly differentiated177961.34 (1.10–1.63)0.00414%
Table
Table 5. Analysis of prognostic factors related to disease-free survival.
Table 5. Analysis of prognostic factors related to disease-free survival.
Prognostic FactorN. of StudiesParticipantsHR (95% CI)pI2
Male sex32910.94 (0.65–1.36)0.760%
Age >65 43010.96 (0.70–1.31)0.8039%
Synchronous liver metastases43021.50 (1.21–1.86)0.00020%
Multiple liver metastases43012.34 (1.67–3.29)<0.000010%
Bilobar liver metastases1253.39 (1.09–10.56)0.04-
>3 cm liver metastases43011.51 (1.10–2.07)0.010%
Chemotherapy before/after liver resection32910.77 (0.56–1.06)0.110%
Primary tumor Size >5 cm1103.22 (0.71–14.57)0.13-
pT3–443011.43 (1.06–1.94)0.020%
pN2–332921.35 (0.93–1.97)0.1135%
Lymphatic invasion present32911.46 (1.02–2.08)0.0443%
Venous invasion present22661.25 (0.92–1.70)0.160%
Primary tumor poorly differentiated43171.27 (0.80–2.01)0.3146%
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marte, G.; Tufo, A.; Steccanella, F.; Marra, E.; Federico, P.; Petrillo, A.; Maida, P. Efficacy of Surgery for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Factors. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051141

AMA Style

Marte G, Tufo A, Steccanella F, Marra E, Federico P, Petrillo A, Maida P. Efficacy of Surgery for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Factors. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(5):1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051141

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marte, Gianpaolo, Andrea Tufo, Francesca Steccanella, Ester Marra, Piera Federico, Angelica Petrillo, and Pietro Maida. 2021. "Efficacy of Surgery for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Factors" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 5: 1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10051141

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