肝切除和微波消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移的效果比较

doi:10.11952/j.issn.1007-1954.2021.07.001

肝胆胰外科杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (7): 385-.doi: 10.11952/j.issn.1007-1954.2021.07.001

肝切除和微波消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移的效果比较

周江敏，陈琳，周晨阳，胡新昇，王金林，申雪晗，张志伟，陈孝平

华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院肝脏外科中心，湖北武汉 430030

收稿日期:2020-12-24 出版日期:2021-07-15 发布日期:2021-07-21
通讯作者: 张志伟，教授，博士，E-mail：zwzhang@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn。
作者简介:周江敏（1990-），男，湖北荆州人，住院医师，在读博士。

Efficacy comparison of liver resection and microwave ablation in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases

ZHOU Jiang-min, CHEN Lin, ZHOU Chen-yang, HU Xin-sheng, WANG Jin-lin, SHEN Xue-han, ZHANG Zhi-wei, CHEN Xiao-ping

Department of Liver Surgery, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China

Received:2020-12-24 Online:2021-07-15 Published:2021-07-21

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的比较肝切除和微波消融（microwave ablation，MWA）治疗结直肠癌肝转移（CRLM）的疗效。方法回顾性分析2013年1月至2020年7月98例CRLM患者的临床资料，根据治疗方法不同分为2组，肝切除组31例，MWA组67例。MWA组共治疗105个病灶，其中特殊部位病灶36个，非特殊部位病灶69个。Kaplan-Meier法绘制生存曲线，Log-rank（Mantel-Cox）检验比较两组肿瘤复发率和生存差异。χ²检验比较两组消融不完全率，单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析消融不完全的危险因素。结果随访截止2020年10月30日，中位随访时间38（4～94）个月。肝切除组中位肝内复发时间22（95%CI 13～49）个月，明显长于MWA组9（95%CI 6～12）个月（P＜0.001）。肝切除组中位生存时间为60（95%CI 33～86）个月，也明显长于MWA组36（95%CI 30～41）个月（P=0.040）。肝切除组和MWA组1、5年累积生存率无统计学差异（100% vs 97%，χ² =0.945，P=1.000；36% vs 27%，χ²=0.437，P=0.508）。肝切除组3年累积生存率高于MWA组（74% vs 48%，χ² =6.013，P=0.014）。特殊部位组消融不完全率明显高于非特殊部位[33.3%（12/36）vs 15.9%（11/69），χ² =4.183，P=0.041]。肿瘤直径≥3 cm、特殊部位、CEA≥200 ng/mL是消融不完全的危险因素，其中肿瘤直径≥3 cm是消融不完全的独立危险因素。结论可切除性CRLM手术切除的疗效优于微波消融，直径大于3 cm的肿瘤不宜微波消融治疗。

关键词:

结直肠癌肝转移, 微波消融, 肝切除术, 生存时间, 消融不完全

Abstract:

Objective To compare the efficacy of liver resection (LR) and microwave ablation (MWA) in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Methods The clinical data of 98 patients with CRLM admitted in Tongji Hospital between Jan. 2013 and Jul. 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into LR group (n=31) and MWA group (n=67). A total of 105 lesions were treated in MWA group, including 36 lesions at so-called “high-risk” locations and 69 lesions at elsewhere locations. Kaplan-Meier test and Log-rank test were used to compare the recurrence and survival between the two groups. The χ²test was used to compare the rate of incomplete ablation between the two groups, and univariate and multivariate Logistic analyses were used to identify risk factors for incomplete ablation. Results By Oct. 30, 2020, the median follow-up time was 38 months (4~94 months). The median intrahepatic recurrence time in the LR group was 22 months (95%CI 13~49months), which was significantly longer than that in the MWA group (9 months, 95%CI 6~12 months, P<0.001).The median survival time in the LR group was 60 months (95%CI 33~86 months), which was also significantly longer than that in the MWA group (36 months, 95%CI 30~41 months, P=0.040). There was no significant difference in 1-and 5-year survival between LR group and MWA group (100% vs 97%, χ² =0.945, P=1.000,36% vs 27%, χ² =0.437, P=0.508). The 3-year cumulative survival rates in the LR group were higher than those in MWA group (74% vs 48%, χ² =6.013, P=0.014). The incomplete ablation rate in the high-risk locations group was significantly higher than that in the elsewhere locations group [33.3%(12/36) vs 15.9%(11/69), χ²=4.183, P=0.041]. Tumor diameter ≥3 cm, high-risk locations, and CEA ≥200 ng/mL were risk factors for incomplete ablation, among which tumor diameter ≥3 cm was an independent risk factor for incomplete ablation. Conclusion The efficacy of LR is better than that of MWA for resectable CRLM. MWA therapy may be not suitable for CRLM with diameter greater than 3 cm.

Key words:

colorectal liver metastases, microwave ablation, liver resection, survival time, incomplete ablation

中图分类号:

R735.7

周江敏, 陈琳, 周晨阳, 胡新昇, 王金林, 申雪晗, 张志伟, 陈孝平.

肝切除和微波消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移的效果比较

[J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2021, 33(7): 385-.

ZHOU Jiang-min, CHEN Lin, ZHOU Chen-yang, HU Xin-sheng, WANG Jin-lin, SHEN Xue-han, ZHANG Zhi-wei, CHEN Xiao-ping.

Efficacy comparison of liver resection and microwave ablation in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases

[J]. Journal of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, 2021, 33(7): 385-.

参考文献

相关文章 15

[1]	钟平勇, 刘欣, 牟廷刚, 卿明, 谢飞. 胸腺肽α1对伴MVI的肝细胞癌患者解剖性肝切除术后免疫功能和预后的影响 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2024, 36(1): 7-12.
[2]	李骞, 涂志坚, 李传富, 李江涛, 戴小明, 陈国栋. Davinci机器人前入路原位右半肝切除术一例 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2024, 36(1): 44-47.
[3]	李晓举, 万丹丹, 王星入, 佟虹兴, 关斌颖, 刘天锡. 荧光导航下经头侧入路腹腔镜解剖性左半肝切除术53例 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(9): 536-540.
[4]	曾庆彬, 徐蓉, 龙奎, 董文志, 孙翊程. 吲哚菁绿荧光导航腹腔镜肝血管瘤剥除术的疗效分析 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(9): 549-553.
[5]	马曾辰, 夏景林, 黄晓武, 叶青海, 周俭, 孙惠川, 黄力文, 樊嘉, 周信达, 杨秉辉, 汤钊猷. 原发性肝癌切除术后生存55年一例 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(9): 562-565.
[6]	丁兢, 邸亮, 李聪, 赵晓飞, 郭庆良, 马超. 术前血清VEGF和IL-12水平对原发性肝癌腹腔镜肝切除术预后的影响[J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(8): 459-463.
[7]	范祺, 倪彦彬, 高杰, 朱继业, 李照. 原发性肝癌术后复发再次肝切除的疗效分析 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(7): 390-396.
[8]	欧浪, 唐善华, 张起帆, 汤仲舜, 黄少坚, 饶晓静, 李川江, 王恺, 周杰. 轻度贫血患者腹腔镜肝切除术后恢复的影响因素分析 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(6): 337-342.
[9]	杨木易, 俞鹏, 胡雄伟, 洪智贤. 血清γ-GT及CA199评估肝内胆管细胞癌切除术后预后的价值[J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(6): 343-347.
[10]	张东, 方宏才. 吲哚菁绿荧光融合影像引导下背头尾侧联合入路腹腔镜解剖性左半肝切除术的临床应用[J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(6): 353-356，365.
[11]	张成, 安东均, 王羊, 杨林, 王金涛, 韩立, 赵宝国, 韩博强, 徐垚, 何进程. T3期胆囊癌腹腔镜根治术中限量解剖性肝切除的应用效果分析[J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(5): 268-273.
[12]	张伟刚, 周迪远, 孙鼎, 杨小华, 薛小峰, 侍阳, 秦磊. 达芬奇机器人Xi系统在肝切除术中的应用 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(4): 198-203.
[13]	刘鹏辉, 仲斌演, 张帅, 李婉慈, 沈建, 朱晓黎. 经动脉化疗栓塞同步微波消融与序贯联合微波消融治疗肝细胞癌的预后对比 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(4): 213-218.
[14]	张天奇, 范卫君. 结直肠癌肝转移消融与外科切除的治疗选择与时机 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(3): 129-133.
[15]	周鹏宇, 李佳霖, 段清垚, 涂志坚, 雷晓华, 贺军, 陈国栋. 基于倾向性评分匹配的ERAS在原发性肝癌肝切除围手术期的应用 [J]. 肝胆胰外科杂志, 2023, 35(3): 134-139.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

肝切除和微波消融治疗结直肠癌肝转移的效果比较

Efficacy comparison of liver resection and microwave ablation in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases

PDF (PC)

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0