Identifying Optimal Surgical Intervention-Based Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer Patients With Liver Metastases

Abstract

Background:

This study aimed at evaluating the effects of surgical treatments-based chemotherapy in the treatment of gastric cancer with liver metastases (GCLM). It has not been established whether Liver-directed treatment (LDT) options such as hepatectomy and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (HGCT), radiofrequency ablation and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (RFAG), transarterial chemoembolization and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (TACEG), gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (GCT) enhance the survival of GCLM patients.

Methods:

We performed systematic literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library from inception to September 2021. We created a network plot to comprehensively analyze the direct and indirect evidence, based on a frequentist method. A contribution plot was used to determine inconsistencies, a forest plot was used to evaluate therapeutic effects, the publication bias was controlled by funnel plot, while the value of surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) was calculated to estimate rank probability.

Results:

A total of 23 retrospective studies were identified, involving 5472 GCLM patients. For OS and 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate of all trials, meta-analysis of the direct comparisons showed significant better for HGCT treatments compared with GCT or PCT. In the comparison of the 5 treatments for 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate, HGCT and RFAG were found to be more effective than GCT and PCT, respectively. By OS and 2-, 3-year survival rate analysis, RFAG was identified as the best option, followed by HGCT, TACEG, GCT and PCT. By 1-year survival rate analysis, HGCT and RFAG were identified as the most effective options.

Conclusion:

HGCT and RFAG has remarkable survival benefits for GCLM patients when compared to TACEG, GCT and PCT. HGCT was found to exhibit superior therapeutic effects for GCLM patients for 1-year survival rate while RFAG was found to be a prospective therapeutic alternative for OS and 2-, 3-year survival rate.

Systematic Review Registration:

identifier [10.37766/inplasy2020.12.0009].

Introduction

Globally, gastric cancer is the fourth most common malignant tumor and the second highest cause of cancer-related mortalities (1–3). Therapeutic options for advanced gastric cancers have been enormously improved. In the last two decades, the 5-year survival rate is up to 40%. However, gastric cancer with liver metastases is considered a late-stage disease. Systemic chemotherapy was recommended as standard cure, with a 5-year survival rate of less than 10% (4, 5). The current standard management of GCLM is systemic chemotherapy with supportive care. Liver metastasis is a common phenomenon for many types of cancer (6–8). Liver-directed treatment (LDT) options such as hepatectomy and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (HGCT), radiofrequency ablation and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (RFAG), transarterial chemoembolization and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (TACEG), gastrectomy plus chemotherapy (GCT) for GCLM is controversial (5, 9, 10). Compared to systemic chemotherapy, surgical treatment such as HGCT and RFAG of hepatic metastases presents favorable prognosis (11–13). According to the guidelines of The Committee of the Japan Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), palliative management is recommended for stage IV gastric cancer, e.g. GCLM. In contrast, colorectal liver metastases are considered as suitable targets for radical surgery because they often present as liver-only metastatic disease, and R0 resection shows good prognostic outcomes, with a 5-year survival rate > 50% (14, 15). Retrospective studies have presented that the combination of hepatectomy and gastrectomy has visible survival outcome superiority (16–21). In the last two decades, along with the results of reported studies which demonstrated that radical surgery of primary gastric cancer and metastatic liver lesions had survival benefits, the Guidelines Committee of JGCA reconsidered the effect of surgical treatment in GCLM patients (22). Therefore, the role of LDT for GCLM is gradually being considered.

Previous therapeutic options for GCLM were HGCT, RFAG, TACEG, GCT and palliative chemotherapy (PCT). There are no randomized controlled clinical trials for GCLM therapies. In the present literature, majority of the studies are retrospective studies, which were performed at a single center, with a limited number of patients. Although some studies have confirmed the superior therapeutic outcomes of LDT, the clinical pathological characteristics of the involved patients reveal some selection bias, therefore, their results are difficult to accept. We performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate the survival benefits of LDT and systemic chemotherapy in the treatment of GCLM.

Methods

Study Protocol

This work was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention (23). The full protocol was registered and available on INPLASY (INPLASY2020120009).

Search Strategy

We retrieved literature published in between 1966 and September 1st, 2021 by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library with the keywords (1) “stomach neoplasm” OR “gastric neoplasms” OR “cancer of stomach” OR “stomach cancers” OR “gastric cancer” AND (2) “liver metastases OR liver metastasis OR hepatic metastasis” AND (3) “operative surgical procedure” OR ablation OR liver resection OR hepatectomy OR gastrectomy OR chemotherapy OR “interventional therapy” and using the search strategies as illustrated in Supplementary Table 1. We selected and evaluated all relevant studies and review articles about GCLM and inquired the authors for unpublished raw data. Searches were limited to English-language publications. In addition, the reference lists of the retrieved articles were examined for potential eligible studies.

Study Selection

The inclusion criteria for the studies were: i. Systemic chemotherapy and surgical treatment; ii. Series of case control or cohort studies; iii. The number of patients were to be > 20; iv. Consists of available endpoints, such as overall survival, 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates, median survival time, and postoperative complications. The exclusion criteria for the studies were: i. studies with insufficient data or no related endpoints; ii. Missing control group.

Data Extraction

Two researchers (MS and ZZ) independently extracted results from the enrolled articles in a standardized form. In addition, a third researcher (TL) was consulted in case there were disagreements. The information extracted from each study included the first author, country, year of publication, number of cases, treatment, sex, median or mean age of patients, study design, follow-up, median survival time. If a study did not report the Hazard Ratio (HR) of overall survival, we estimated HR and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the method described by Parmar et al. (24) and Tierney et al. (25). We recovered the data of Kaplan-Meier curves as recently described by us (26, 27).

Quality Assessment

We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess the quality of each included study. Scores ≥ 7 were considered high quality. We used a “star system” for case-control studies (Supplementary Table 2).

Publication Bias

The funnel plots were used to establish publication bias. The funnel plot that was symmetrical near zero represented no publication bias.

Statistical Analysis

The primary endpoint of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was overall survival (OS), defined as the time from random assignment to date of death from any cause or date of last follow-up. Secondary endpoints were 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rates. A pair-wise meta-analysis was performed by STATA 13.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). R-3.6.3 and R packages gemtc were applied to conduct the Bayesian NMA, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for HR in overall survival analysis. 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rates were analyzed while Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated by fixed-effects or random-effects model (28, 29). Z test was performed to evaluate the significance of overall effect size.

A network plot was then used to directly demonstrate the whole information of included studies (30). Depending on direct comparison and indirect comparison outcomes, we estimated the contribution of each direct treatment comparison in the whole network structure, which was presented in a contribution plot. The inconsistency factor (IF) was calculated to determine the possible inconsistency in network comparison. The 95% CIs of IF values close to zero or the p value of Z test higher than 0.05 demonstrated there being no statistically significant inconsistency (31). Summary effects and corresponding predictive intervals were used to conclude relative mean effects and impact of heterogeneity in the network forest plot.

Finally, we calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of each treatment, which transformed the relative effects to the probability (2). SUCRA values range from 0 to 100%. The treatment was more valuable if the SUCRA value was higher. According to the estimated probability value, the treatments were ranked, which showed the percentage of effectiveness a treatment achieves with reference to an imaginary ideal treatment. Small-study effects was adjusted by a model of network meta-regression, the variance of the log-odds ratios as covariation (32).

Results

Study Characteristics

A total 6362 relevant articles were downloaded. The flow diagram documenting the search and inclusion of relevant studies is displayed in Figure 1. After considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 23 retrospective studies involving 5472 GCLM patients were identified (12, 33–57). At least one of the following treatments were assessed by the study: HGCT, RFAG, GCT, PCT, and TACEG. Eight studies were three-arm trials while fifteen studies were two-arm trials. Further characteristics and Newcastle-Ottawa scale results regarding the included studies are presented in Table 1 (Supplementary Table 2).

Figure 1

Direct Comparisons and Subgroup Analysis

For OS and 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate of all trials, meta-analysis of the direct comparisons showed significant better for HGCT treatments compared with GCT or PCT, with the exception of RFAG (Table 2). As to OS and 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate of all trials, PCT predicted a significantly worse OS than GCT (Table 2). For 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate, the results showed that RFAG indicated a better survival rate than GCT (Table 2). Analysis of Asian subgroups showed that HGCT were better than GCT in OS, and 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate, RFAG were better than GCT in 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate (Table 2). Overall, statistical heterogeneity was moderate, although for most comparisons 95% CIs were wide and included values indicating very high or no heterogeneity, which portrayed the small number of studies available for every pair-wise comparison. In the meta-analyses of direct comparisons for OS and 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate, I² values higher than 40% were recorded for the comparisons HGCT versus GCT and HGCT versus PCT (Table 2).

Network Meta-Analysis

The network evidence plot is shown in Figure 2. Five treatments were included for analysis; HGCT, GCT, PCT, RFAG and TACEG, respectively. Comparing the studies with regards to their OS, 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rates, HGCT had the highest number of related studies and number of patients, while RFAG had the least number of patients and TACEG had the least number of related studies.

Figure 2

The contribution plot is presented in Figure 3. Ten comparisons were made in the network analysis. All of them are mixed comparisons. In the overall contribution of network analysis, the remarkable influence evidence in the comparisons of 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rate is PCT vs. TACEG (19.9%), HGCT vs. RFAG (25.8%), GCT vs. PCT (22.2%), respectively.

Figure 3

There was no inconsistency between direct and indirect point estimates. In our network, there were 5 closed loops (Supplementary Figure 1). All confidence intervals for inconsistency factors (IFs) were compatible with zero inconsistency (IF=0) for all study outcomes (Supplementary Figure 1).

Network Comparison

The summary effects with 95% CI are shown in Figure 4. In the comparison of the 5 treatments for 1-year survival rate, HGCT and RFAG were found to be more effective than GCT and PCT, respectively. GCT and TACEG was found to be more effective than PCT while there was no difference between HGCT and RFAG (Figure 4A). In the comparison of 2-year survival rates, HGCT and RFAG were found to be more effective than GCT and PCT, respectively. Other comparisons did not exhibit any significant differences (Figure 4B). In the comparison of 3-year survival rate, HGCT and RFAG were found to be more effective than GCT and PCT, respectively. GCT and TACEG was found to be more effective than PCT while there was no difference between HGCT and RFAG (Figure 4C).

Figure 4

Ranking of Treatment

Figures 4D–F shows the relative ranking distribution of estimated cumulative probabilities for each treatment. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was adjusted by small-study effects. The SUCRA value rankings of 1-year survival rate were HGCT (83.8%), RFAG (81.5%), TACEG (51.7%), GCT (29.4%), and PCT (3.7%). The SUCRA value rankings of 2-year survival rate were RFAG (83%), HGCT (68.7%), TACEG (54%), GCT (30.9%), and PCT (13.4%). The SUCRA value rankings of 3-year survival rate were RFAG (77%), HGCT (72.9%), TACEG (72.4%), GCT (20.2%), and PCT (7.5%).

Network Comparison, Ranking of Treatment and Subgroup Analysis of OS

On OS analysis, four treatments (HGCT, GCT, RFAG, TACEG) showed an HR in favor of OS (HR range, 0.146-0.979) (Figure 5A) in Asian and Caucasian. RFAG was identified as the best option, based again on HR and the SUCRA (Figure 5B), followed by HGCT, TACEG, GCT and PCT. In Asian population, HGCT and RFAG had the most favorable HR (HGCT HR, 0.331 [95% CI, 0.230-0.490; RFAG HR, 0.265 [95% CI, 0.138-0.510]) (Figure 5C); they ranked, on median, first and second in all the simulations (Figure 5D).

Figure 5

Subgroup Analysis of Network Comparison in Asian Population

The summary effects in Asian population with 95% CI are shown in Figure 6. In the comparison of the 5 treatments for 1-, 3- year survival rate, HGCT and RFAG were found to be more effective than GCT and PCT, respectively. TACEG was found to be more effective than PCT while there was no difference between GCT and PCT (Figures 6A, C). In the comparison of 2-year survival rates, HGCT and RFAG were found to be more effective than GCT and PCT, respectively. Other comparisons did not exhibit any significant differences (Figure 6B). The SUCRA value rankings of 1-year survival rate were HGCT, RFAG, TACEG, GCT, and PCT (Figure 6D). The SUCRA value rankings of 2-, 3-year survival rate were RFAG, HGCT, TACEG, GCT, and PCT (Figures 6E, F).

Figure 6

Publication Bias

The funnel plot for network meta-analysis is presented in Figure 7. In general, all the selected studies were symmetrically distributed between the vertical line (x = 0). Therefore, there was no noteworthy publication bias in our network meta-analysis.

Figure 7

Discussion

In this network meta-analysis, we revealed that HGCT and RFAG and has remarkable survival benefits for GCLM patients when compared to TACEG, GCT and PCT. By OS and 2-, 3-year survival rate analysis, RFAG was identified as the best option, followed by HGCT, TACEG, GCT and PCT. By 1-year survival rate analysis, HGCT and RFAG were identified as the most effective options. Due to non-specific symptoms, majority of gastric cancer patients were initially diagnosed with distant metastases. GCLM was considered as IV stage. The NCCN guideline recommends systemic chemotherapy as the standard cure for this group of patients. However, some controversies have been reported in the past two decades. Kim et al. (59) reported that gastrectomy or gastrectomy plus hepatectomy in GCLM patients has survival benefits when compared to chemotherapy. Tsujimoto et al. (60) showed that the 5-year survival rate of GCLM patients after hepatic resection was 31.5%, median survival time was 34 months. They also found that gastric tumor less than 6 cm and D2 lymphadenectomy were important factors for prognosis. Song’s study (61) suggested that surgical hepatic resection is beneficial for long-term survival in selected patients, with a 3-year survival rate of 47.6%. Groundbreaking by survival benefits of combined conversion therapy with surgery in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases, numerous general surgeons navigated HGCT or RFAG in GCLM, which was thought over as a crucial strategy to alleviation disease and to prolong patient life (62–79). Liver-directed treatment (LDT) options for GCLM patients and surgical treatments were gradually attempted (12). If complete resection of liver metastases is possible, considering adequate hepatic reserve and surgical security, radical operations for primary gastric cancer and liver metastases lesions should be attempted (22, 79).

Considering the retrospective nature of the included studies and different selection biases for choosing patients on whom to perform radical surgery, their outcomes can hardly be regarded as a rationale in the treatment of GCLM, but it broadens the horizon of radical surgery in the selected GCLM patients. Furthermore, its prognostic value is considerable. Hepatic resection for liver metastases from colorectal cancer has been recommended as a standard treatment, 5-year survival was almost 40% (80). When the number of liver metastasis tumor ≤ 3, the diameter of single metastasis lesion ≤ 3 cm, the resection of primary gastric cancer and liver metastasis can also offer survival benefits in the GCLM patient (40). The security of surgical treatments for GCLM patients has also been confirmed. It does not enhance postoperative mortality (37). Studies also reported that GCLM patients with hepatectomy and gastrectomy exhibited favorable prognosis (2, 81–85). Therefore, we have confidence in the survival benefits of surgical hepatic resection. The value of this surgical treatment option is worth considering. According to the SUCRA values of the NMA, HGCT exhibited remarkable 1-, 2-, or 3-year survival and OS outcomes. Hepatic resection has survival superiority for selected GCLM patients.

RFAG was superior to the other therapies in 2-, or 3-year survival rate and OS analysis in this NMA. RFA has been thought over a less invasive therapeutic choice for GCLM (86). RFA can be used combined with systemic treatments (chemotherapy, targeted treatment, and immunotherapy), surgeries, and radiotherapy. RFAG which was radiofrequency ablation and gastrectomy plus chemotherapy showed comparable outcomes to curative resection (12, 48, 87). Cheon’s study suggested that a survival benefit of RFAG with curative intent was observed as compared with GCT, as evidenced by an improvement of 20.8% in the 5-year survival rate, corresponding to a 64.0% reduction in the risk of death (48). Kim et al. reported that The RFAG group showed a 76% decreased death rate compared to the GCT, was received well, and was found to be minor complications (34). Guner et al. suggested that in select patients with GCLM, HGCT and RFA showed satisfactory and comparable short- and long-term results, possible liver-directed treatment options for GCLM patients should be considered on an individual basis (12). Tang et al. suggested that OS were satisfactory and comparable between RFA and HGCT but better than those of chemotherapy, RFA is an appropriate option for patients with gastric cancer who have a solitary liver metastasis measuring ≤3.0 cm (55).

In our network analysis, we adopted several methods to control potential bias. First, the quality of all included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The contribution plot was then performed to seek for significant bias in the network analysis. HGCT and RFAG exhibited the most impact on the 1-, 2- and 3-year survival rates, with 19.6%, 25.8% and 22.2% respectively, which was attributed to the small number of included patients. We also applied the small-study effects to adjust the value of SUCRA to control for potential bias. There was a low risk of publication bias.

Our study had some limitations. The retrospective nature of the included studies enhances the possibility of selection bias between different centers. Patient characteristics such as the number and size of hepatic metastasis, the location of metastasis lesions, the postoperative supportive treatment and adjuvant chemotherapy, which are vital prognostic factors to influence the survival benefits in GCLM patients could hardly ensure balance. However, it is difficult to perform prospective cohort studies for this group of patients die to the small number of GCLM patients in single centers and dismal prognosis with systemic chemotherapy. Our results recommend the HGCT or RFAG treatment option for GCLM patients when resection of gastric cancer and liver metastases lesions is feasible. This recommendation is in tandem with those of the EORTC and JCOG studies. Liver resection or RFA is a favorable option for GCLM patients without extrahepatic metastases, peritoneal dissemination and multiple hepatic metastases (22). Meanwhile, the maximum liver metastatic tumor size for which RFA is safe and effective remains highly controversial (55, 88).

To sum up, HGCT was found to exhibit superior therapeutic effects for GCLM patients while RFAG was found to be a prospective therapeutic alternative. Although we obtained data from retrospective studies, we confirmed the role of RFAG and HGCT as a therapeutic option for GCLM. Large-scale prospective studies in multiple centers are needed to further evaluate the survival benefits of potential radical surgery or RFAG in selected patients.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81902498), Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation (2019CFB450, 2019CFB177, 2016CFB530), Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Provincial Department of Education (Q20182105), Chen Xiao-ping Foundation for the Development of Science and Technology of Hubei Provincial (CXPJJH11800001-2018333), The Scientific and Technological Project of Shiyan City of Hubei Province (18Y35), The Foundation of Health and Family Planning Commission of Hubei Province (WJ2021Q007), and Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program (201810929005, 201810929009, 201810929068, 201813249010, S201910929009, S201910929045, S202013249005, S202013249008 and 202010929009).

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

• 1

  VaronCAzzi-MartinLKhalidSSeeneevassenLMenardASpuulP. Helicobacters and Cancer, Not Only Gastric Cancer? Semin Cancer Biol (2021). doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2021.08.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  MbuagbawLRochwergBJaeschkeRHeels-AndsellDAlhazzaniWThabaneLet al. Approaches to Interpreting and Choosing the Best Treatments in Network Meta-Analyses. Syst Rev (2017) 6(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0473-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  NavashenaqJGShabgahAGBanachMJamialahmadiTPensonPEJohnstonTPet al. The Interaction of Helicobacter Pylori With Cancer Immunomodulatory Stromal Cells: New Insight Into Gastric Cancer Pathogenesis. Semin Cancer Biol (2021). doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2021.09.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  KulikULehnerFBektasHKlempnauerJ. Liver Resection for Non-Colorectal Liver Metastases - Standards and Extended Indications. Viszeralmedizin: Gastrointest Med Surg (2015) 31(6):394–8. doi: 10.1159/000439419

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  PageAJWeissMJPawlikTM. Surgical Management of Noncolorectal Cancer Liver Metastases. Cancer (2014) 120(20):3111–21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28743

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  pt?>RiddioughGEJalalQPeriniMVMajeedAW. Liver Regeneration and Liver Metastasis. Semin Cancer Biol (2021) 71:86–97. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.05.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  MaBWellsAWeiLZhengJ. Prostate Cancer Liver Metastasis: Dormancy and Resistance to Therapy. Semin Cancer Biol (2021) 71:2–9. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  WangHLiXPengRWangYWangJ. Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis. Semin Cancer Biol (2021) 71:21–32. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.06.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  TiberioGAMRovielloFDoniniADe ManzoniG. Hepatic Metastases From Gastric Cancer: A Surgical Perspective. World J Gastroenterol (2015) 21(41):11489–92. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i41.11489

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  RomanoFGaranciniMUggeriFDegrateLNespoliLGianottiLet al. Surgical Treatment of Liver Metastases of Gastric Cancer: State of the Art. World J Surg Oncol (2012) 10:157. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-157

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  GunerAYildirimR. Surgical Management of Metastatic Gastric Cancer: Moving Beyond the Guidelines. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol (2019) 4:58. doi: 10.21037/tgh.2019.08.03

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  GunerASonTChoIKwonIGAnJYKimHIet al. Liver-Directed Treatments for Liver Metastasis From Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Comparison Between Liver Resection and Radiofrequency Ablation. Gastric Cancer (2016) 19(3):951–60. doi: 10.1007/s10120-015-0522-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  MelicharBVobořilZCermanJMelicharováKNožičkaJMergancováJet al. Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy in Gastric Cancer: A Report of Four Cases and Analysis of the Literature. Tumori (2004) 90(4):428–34. doi: 10.1177/030089160409000414

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  JeongSHeoJSParkJYChoiDWChoiSH. Surgical Resection of Synchronous and Metachronous Lung and Liver Metastases of Colorectal Cancers. Ann Surg Treat Res (2017) 92(2):82–9. doi: 10.4174/astr.2017.92.2.82

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  HosokawaIAllardMAGelliMCiacioOVibertECherquiDet al. Long-Term Survival Benefit and Potential for Cure After R1 Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann Surg Oncol (2016) 23(6):1897–905. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-5060-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  SaitoAKorenagaDSakaguchiYOhnoSIchiyoshiYSugimachiK. Surgical Treatment for Gastric Carcinomas With Concomitant Hepatic Metastasis. Hepato-Gastroenterology (1996) 43(9):560–4.

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  FujiiKFujiokaSKatoKMachikiYKutsunaYIshikawaAet al. Resection of Liver Metastasis From Gastric Adenocarcinoma. Hepato-Gastroenterology (2001) 48(38):368–71.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  SakamotoYOhyamaSYamamotoJYamadaKSekiMOhtaKIet al. Surgical Resection of Liver Metastases of Gastric Cancer: An Analysis of a 17-Year Experience With 22 Patients. Surgery (2003) 133(5):507–11. doi: 10.1067/msy.2003.147

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  RohHRSuhKSLeeHJYangHKChoeKJLeeKU. Outcome of Hepatic Resection for Metastatic Gastric Cancer. Am Surg (2005) 71(2):95–9. doi: 10.1177/000313480507100201

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  MoriseZSugiokaAHoshimotoSKatoTIkedaMUyamaIet al. The Role of Hepatectomy for Patients With Liver Metastases of Gastric Cancer. Hepatogastroenterology (2008) 55(85):1238–41.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  ThelenAJonasSBenckertCLopez-HänninenENeumannURudolphBet al. Liver Resection for Metastatic Gastric Cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol (2008) 34(12):1328–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2008.01.022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  KataokaKKinoshitaTMoehlerMMauerMShitaraKWagnerADet al. Current Management of Liver Metastases From Gastric Cancer: What is Common Practice? New Challenge of EORTC and JCOG. Gastric Cancer (2017) 20:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s10120-017-0696-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDGGroupP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Bmj (2009) 339:b2535. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  ParmarMKTorriVStewartL. Extracting Summary Statistics to Perform Meta-Analyses of the Published Literature for Survival Endpoints. Stat Med (1998) 17(24):2815–34. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::AID-SIM110>3.0.CO;2-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  TierneyJFStewartLAGhersiDBurdettSSydesMR. Practical Methods for Incorporating Summary Time-to-Event Data Into Meta-Analysis. Trials (2007) 8:16. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  LiYDuMWangSZhaJLeiPWangXet al. Clinicopathological Implication of Long Non-Coding RNAs SOX2 Overlapping Transcript and Its Potential Target Gene Network in Various Cancers. Front Genet (2019) 10:1375. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.01375

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  SunMDuMZhangWXiongSGongXLeiPet al. Survival and Clinicopathological Significance of SIRT1 Expression in Cancers: A Meta-Analysis. Front Endocrinol (2019) 10:121. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00121

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  MantelNHaenszelW. Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease. J Natl Cancer Inst (1959) 22(4):719–48.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  DerSimonianRLairdN. Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials. Control Clin Trials (1986) 7(3):177–88. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  SalantiG. Indirect and Mixed-Treatment Comparison, Network, or Multiple-Treatments Meta-Analysis: Many Names, Many Benefits, Many Concerns for the Next Generation Evidence Synthesis Tool. Res Synth Methods (2012) 3(2):80–97. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  DiasSWeltonNJCaldwellDMAdesAE. Checking Consistency in Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis. Stat Med (2010) 29(7-8):932–44. doi: 10.1002/sim.3767

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  RileyRDHigginsJPDeeksJJ. Interpretation of Random Effects Meta-Analyses. Bmj (2011) 342:d549. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d549

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  GuanYLiuZBWangXLiuYCChenGW. Analysis of Therapeutic Effects and Prognostic Factors for Hepatic Metastasis From Gastric Cancer. Med J Chin People’s Liberation Army (2016) 41(4):312–6. doi: 10.11855/j.issn.0577-7402.2016.04.10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  KimHRHa CheonSLeeKHRyun AhnJJeungHCSook LeeSet al. Efficacy and Feasibility of Radiofrequency Ablation for Liver Metastases From Gastric Adenocarcinoma. Int J Hyperthermia (2010) 26(4):305–15. doi: 10.3109/02656730903555696

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  LiYMZhanWHHanFHHeYLPengJSCaiSRet al. Clinicopathological Analysis of Synchronous Liver Metastasis in Gastric Cancer and Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi = Chin J Gastrointest Surg (2006) 9(2):127–30.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  LuJWangWDXuPFanC. Investigation of the Therapeutic Regimes for Liver Metastasis From Gastric Cancer and Analysis of Therapeutic Effects. J Intervent Radiol (2010) 19(10):814–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  MarkarSRMackenzieHMikhailSMughalMPrestonSRMaynardNDet al. Surgical Resection of Hepatic Metastases From Gastric Cancer: Outcomes From National Series in England. Gastric Cancer (2017) 20(2):379–86. doi: 10.1007/s10120-016-0604-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  YaoGLFanYGZhaiJMLuBSLiuKL. Radical Gastrectomy With Hepatoarterial Catheter Implantation for Late-Stage Gastric Cancer. World J Gastroenterol (2015) 21(9):2754–8. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i9.2754

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  ShinoharaTMaedaYHamadaTFutakawaN. Survival Benefit of Surgical Treatment for Liver Metastases From Gastric Cancer. J Gastrointest Surg (2015) 19(6):1043–51. doi: 10.1007/s11605-015-2775-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  OhkuraYShinoharaHHarutaSUenoMHashimotoMSakaiYet al. Hepatectomy Offers Superior Survival Compared With Non-Surgical Treatment for </= 3 Metastatic Tumors With Diameters < 3 Cm From Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Study. World J Surg (2015) 39(11):2757–63. doi: 10.1007/s00268-015-3151-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  LiuSFLuCRChengHDXiHQCuiJXLiJYet al. Comparison of Therapeutic Efficacy Between Gastrectomy With Transarterial Chemoembolization Plus Systemic Chemotherapy and Systemic Chemotherapy Alone in Gastric Cancer With Synchronous Liver Metastasis. Chin Med J (2015) 128(16):2194–201. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.162497

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  LiZFanBShanFTangLBuZWuAet al. Gastrectomy in Comprehensive Treatment of Advanced Gastric Cancer With Synchronous Liver Metastasis: A Prospectively Comparative Study. World J Surg Oncol (2015) 13:21261. doi: 10.1186/s12957-015-0627-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  TiberioGAMBaiocchiGLMorgagniPMarrelliDMarchetACipollariCet al. Gastric Cancer and Synchronous Hepatic Metastases: Is It Possible to Recognize Candidates to R0 Resection? Ann Surg Oncol (2014) 22(2):589–96. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-4018-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  WangWLiangHZhangHWangXXueQZhangR. Prognostic Significance of Radical Surgical Treatment for Gastric Cancer Patients With Synchronous Liver Metastases. Med Oncol (2014) 31(11):1–8. doi: 10.1007/s12032-014-0258-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  ChenLSongMQLinHZHaoLHJiangXJLiZYet al. Chemotherapy and Resection for Gastric Cancer With Synchronous Liver Metastases. World J Gastroenterol (2013) 19(13):2097–103. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i13.2097

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  MikiYFujitaniKHiraoMKurokawaYManoMTsujieMet al. Significance of Surgical Treatment of Liver Metastases From Gastric Cancer. Anticancer Res (2012) 32(2):665–70.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MakinoHKunisakiCIzumisawaYTokuhisaMOshimaTNaganoYet al. Indication for Hepatic Resection in the Treatment of Liver Metastasis From Gastric Cancer. Anticancer Res (2010) 30(6):2367–76.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  CheonSHRhaSYJeungHCImCKKimSHKimHRet al. Survival Benefit of Combined Curative Resection of the Stomach (D2 Resection) and Liver in Gastric Cancer Patients With Liver Metastases. Ann Oncol (2008) 19(6):1146–53. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  LiSCLeeCHHungCLWuJCChenJH. Surgical Resection of Metachronous Hepatic Metastases From Gastric Cancer Improves Long-Term Survival: A Population-Based Study. PloS One (2017) 12(7):e0182255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182255

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  RyuTTakamiYWadaYTateishiMMatsushimaHYoshitomiMet al. Oncological Outcomes After Hepatic Resection and/or Surgical Microwave Ablation for Liver Metastasis From Gastric Cancer. Asian J Surg (2019) 42(1):100–5. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2017.09.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ShirasuHTsushimaTKawahiraMKawaiSKawakamiTKitoYet al. Role of Hepatectomy in Gastric Cancer With Multiple Liver-Limited Metastases. Gastric Cancer (2018) 21(2):338–44. doi: 10.1007/s10120-017-0730-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  TiberioGAMConiglioAMarchetAMarrelliDGiacopuzziSBaiocchiLet al. Metachronous Hepatic Metastases From Gastric Carcinoma: A Multicentric Survey. Eur J Surg Oncol (2009) 35(5):486–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2008.12.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  ZhouBHeNHongJYangTNgDMGaoXet al. HIFU for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer With Liver Metastases With Unsuitable Indications for Hepatectomy and Radiofrequency Ablation: A Prospective and Propensity Score-Matched Study. BMC Surg (2021) 21(1):308. doi: 10.1186/s12893-021-01307-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  JagricTHorvatM. Surgical Resection of Synchronous Liver Metastases in Gastric Cancer Patients. A Propensity Score-Matched Study. Radiol Oncol (2020) 55(1):57–65. doi: 10.2478/raon-2020-0067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  TangKZhangBDongLWangLTangZ. Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Traditional Liver Resection and Chemotherapy for Liver Metastases From Gastric Cancer. J Int Med Res (2020) 48(7):300060520940509. doi: 10.1177/0300060520940509

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  YuPZhangYYeZChenXHuangLDuYet al. Treatment of Synchronous Liver Metastases From Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Study. Cancer Manage Res (2020) 12:7905–11. doi: 10.2147/cmar.S261353

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  PicadoODygertLMacedoFIFranceschiDSleemanDLivingstoneASet al. The Role of Surgical Resection for Stage IV Gastric Cancer With Synchronous Hepatic Metastasis. J Surg Res (2018) 232:422–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.06.067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  WangWLiangHZhangHWangXXueQZhangR. Prognostic Significance of Radical Surgical Treatment for Gastric Cancer Patients With Synchronous Liver Metastases. Med Oncol (Northwood London England) (2014) 31(11):258. doi: 10.1007/s12032-014-0258-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  KimKHLeeKBaekSKChangHJKimYJParkDJet al. Survival Benefit of Gastrectomy ± Metastasectomy in Metastatic Gastric Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy. Ann Oncol (2010) 21:viii231. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq522

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  TsujimotoHIchikuraTOnoSSugasawaHHirakiSSakamotoNet al. Outcomes for Patients Following Hepatic Resection of Metastatic Tumors From Gastric Cancer. Hepatol Int (2010) 4(1):406–13. doi: 10.1007/s12072-009-9161-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  SongAZhangXYuFLiDShaoWZhouY. Surgical Resection for Hepatic Metastasis From Gastric Cancer: A Multi-Institution Study. Oncotarget (2017) 8:71147–53. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.16705

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  MurthyRXiongHNunezRCohenACBarronBSzklarukJet al. Yttrium 90 Resin Microspheres for the Treatment of Unresectable Colorectal Hepatic Metastases After Failure of Multiple Chemotherapy Regimens: Preliminary Results. J Vasc Intervent Radiol: JVIR (2005) 16(7):937–45. doi: 10.1097/01.rvi.0000161142.12822.66

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  CercekABoucherTMGluskinJSAguiloAChouJFConnellLCet al. Response Rates of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Pump Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Refractory to All Standard Chemotherapies. J Surg Oncol (2016) 114(6):655–63. doi: 10.1002/jso.24399

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  ZampinoMGMagniERavendaPSCellaCABonomoGDella VignaPet al. Treatments for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A New Focus on a Familiar Concept. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol (2016) 108:154–63. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.11.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  NosherJLAhmedIPatelANGendelVMurilloPGMossRet al. Non-Operative Therapies for Colorectal Liver Metastases. J Gastrointest Oncol (2015) 6(2):224–40. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2014.065

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  AssumpcaoLChotiMAGleisnerALSchulickRDSwartzMHermanJet al. Patterns of Recurrence Following Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases: Effect of Primary Rectal Tumor Site. Arch Surg (Chicago Ill: 1960) (2008) 143(8):743–9; discussion 9-50. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.143.8.743

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  de JongGMHendriksTEekAOyenWJNagtegaalIDBleichrodtRPet al. Adjuvant Radioimmunotherapy Improves Survival of Rats After Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann Surg (2011) 253(2):336–41. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181ff313a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  FiorentiniGPoddieDBCantoreMGiovanisPGuadagniSDe GiorgiUet al. Locoregional Therapy for Liver Metastases From Colorectal Cancer: The Possibilities of Intraarterial Chemotherapy, and New Hepatic-Directed Modalities. Hepatogastroenterology (2001) 48(38):305–12.

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  FiorentiniGPoddieDBDe GiorgiUGuglielminettiDGiovanisPLeoniMet al. Global Approach to Hepatic Metastases From Colorectal Cancer: Indication and Outcome of Intra-Arterial Chemotherapy and Other Hepatic-Directed Treatments. Med Oncol (Northwood London England) (2000) 17(3):163–73. doi: 10.1007/BF02780523

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  GleisnerALChotiMAAssumpcaoLNathanHSchulickRDPawlikTM. Colorectal Liver Metastases: Recurrence and Survival Following Hepatic Resection, Radiofrequency Ablation, and Combined Resection-Radiofrequency Ablation. Arch Surg (Chicago Ill: 1960) (2008) 143(12):1204–12. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.143.12.1204

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  GulecSA. Y-90 Radiomicrosphere Therapy for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases. Semin Nucl Med (2016) 46(2):126–34. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2015.10.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  HughesKSSimonRSonghorabodiSAdsonMAIlstrupDMFortnerJGet al. Resection of the Liver for Colorectal Carcinoma Metastases: A Multi-Institutional Study of Patterns of Recurrence. Surgery (1986) 100(2):278–84.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  MaleuxGDerooseCLaenenAVerslypeCHeyeSHaustermansKet al. Yttrium-90 Radioembolization for the Treatment of Chemorefractory Colorectal Liver Metastases: Technical Results, Clinical Outcome and Factors Potentially Influencing Survival. Acta Oncol (Stockholm Sweden) (2016) 55(4):486–95. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1101151

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  SagAASelcukbiricikFMandelNM. Evidence-Based Medical Oncology and Interventional Radiology Paradigms for Liver-Dominant Colorectal Cancer Metastases. World J Gastroenterol (2016) 22(11):3127–49. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i11.3127

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  ScheeleJAltendorf-HofmannA. Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Langenbecks Arch Surg (1999) 384(4):313–27. doi: 10.1007/s004230050209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  TanakaKMurakamiTYabushitaYHiroshimaYMatsuoKEndoIet al. Maximal Debulking Liver Resection as a Beneficial Treatment Strategy for Advanced and Aggressive Colorectal Liver Metastases. Anticancer Res (2014) 34(10):5547–54.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  VoglTJEmamANaguibNNEichlerKZangosS. How Effective Are Percutaneous Liver-Directed Therapies in Patients With Non-Colorectal Liver Metastases? Viszeralmedizin (2015) 31(6):406–13. doi: 10.1159/000440677

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  WiggansMGShahtahmassebiGArooriSBowlesMJBriggsCStellDA. The Pre-Operative Rate of Growth of Colorectal Metastases in Patients Selected for Liver Resection Does Not Influence Post-Operative Disease-Free Survival. Eur J Surg Oncol: J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol (2016) 42(3):426–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.09.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  LuoZRongZHuangC. Surgery Strategies for Gastric Cancer With Liver Metastasis. Front Oncol (2019) 9:1353. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01353

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  LeporrierJMaurelJChicheLBaraSSegolPLaunoyG. A Population-Based Study of the Incidence, Management and Prognosis of Hepatic Metastases From Colorectal Cancer. Br J Surg (2006) 93(4):465–74. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5278

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  KinoshitaTKinoshitaTSaiuraAEsakiMSakamotoHYamanakaT. Multicentre Analysis of Long-Term Outcome After Surgical Resection for Gastric Cancer Liver Metastases. Br J Surg (2015) 102(1):102–7. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9684

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  TiberioGAMFerrariVDMinistriniSCipollariCGraziosiLMorgagniPet al. Gastric Cancer With Synchronous Hepatic Metastases: A Multicentric Italian Survey. J Clin Oncol (2013) 31(15). doi: 10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.e15148

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  QiuJLDengMGLiWZouRHLiBKZhengYet al. Hepatic Resection for Synchronous Hepatic Metastasis From Gastric Cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol (2013) 39(7):694–700. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.03.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  LiuPZhuXYangRJChenHXuHFGaoSet al. Interventional Treatment for Progressive Hepatic Metastases From Gastric Cancer After Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Analysis of 72 Cases. J Intervent Radiol (China) (2013) 22(9):742–6. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-794X.2013.09.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  BaekHUKimSBChoEHJinSHYuHJLeeJIet al. Hepatic Resection for Hepatic Metastases From Gastric Adenocarcinoma. J Gastric Cancer (2013) 13(2):86–92. doi: 10.5230/jgc.2013.13.2.86

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  ZhangKChenL. Chinese Consensus on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastric Cancer With Liver Metastases. Ther Adv Med Oncol (2020) 12:1758835920904803. doi: 10.1177/1758835920904803

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  LiaoYYPengNFLongDYuPCZhangSZhongJHet al. Hepatectomy for Liver Metastases From Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review. BMC Surg (2017) 17(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s12893-017-0215-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  WangXSofocleousCTErinjeriJPPetreENGonenMDoKGet al. Margin Size is an Independent Predictor of Local Tumor Progression After Ablation of Colon Cancer Liver Metastases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol (2013) 36(1):166–75. doi: 10.1007/s00270-012-0377-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar