The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a ‘toolbox’ of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.

Irreversible electroporation as salvage treatment was effective and relatively safe for colorectal liver metastases 5.0 cm or smaller that were considered unsuitable for partial hepatectomy or ther... Background Irreversible electroporation (IRE), an ablative technique that uses high-voltage electrical pulses, has shown promise for eradicating tumors near critical structures, including blood ves...

Thermal ablation and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) are techniques to eradicate colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study compares the safety, efficacy and long-term oncological outcomes of these treatment methods. All prospectively registered patients (AmCORE registry) treated with thermal ablation or SABR alone for unresectable CRLM between 2007 and 2020 were analyzed using multivariate Cox-proportional hazard regression. In total 199 patients were included for analysis: 144 (400 CRLM) thermal ablation; 55 (69 CRLM) SABR. SABR patients were characterized by older age (p = 0.006), extrahepatic disease at diagnosis (p = 0.004) and larger tumors (p < 0.001). Thermal ablation patients were more likely to have synchronous disease, higher clinical risk scores (p = 0.030) and higher numbers of CRLMs treated (p < 0.001). Mortality was zero and morbidity low in both groups: no serious adverse events were recorded following SABR (n = 0/55) and nine (n = 9/144 [6.3%]; all CTCAE grade 3) after thermal ablation. SABR was associated with an inferior overall survival (OS) (median OS 53.0 months vs. 27.4 months; HR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.12–1.49; p = 0.003), local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) per-tumor (HR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.01–1.52; p = 0.044) and local control per-patient (HR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.20–2.04; p = 0.001) and per-tumor (HR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.44–2.49; p < 0.001). In this study thermal ablation was superior to SABR with regard to OS, LTPFS and local control, albeit at the cost of a limited risk of serious adverse events. Further studies are required to assess whether the worse outcomes following SABR were the effect of true differences in ablative treatment or a result of residual confounding.

Objectives: This single-center retrospective study evaluates the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous ablation using microwave ablation (MWA) and irreversible electroporation (IRE) in patients with breast cancer liver metastases (BCLM). Methods: Between August 2018 and December 2023, 32 patients underwent 40 image-guided ablations for 57 BCLM. Mean age was 61.3 years (range: 32–85), and mean tumor size was 2.9 cm (range: 0.9–7.0 cm). Fifty lesions were treated with MWA and seven with IRE. Clinical efficacy was assessed by m-RECIST response at first follow-up imaging (after ≥1 month) and by monitoring local tumor progression (LTP), local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), and overall survival (OS). Safety was evaluated by adverse events according to CTCAE. Kaplan–Meier statistics were used for LTPFS and OS. Results: Median follow-up was 32.4 months (95% CI 16.6–48.0). Complete response was observed in 34 tumors (59.6%), partial response in 14 (24.6%), and progressive disease in 9 (15.8%). LTP occurred in 37 tumors (64.9%), with a median time to progression of 11.1 months (95% CI 1.4–20.8). One- and two-year LTPFS rates were 43.6% and 34.1%. Sixteen patients died during follow-up, with median OS of 27.8 months (95% CI 19.0–36.6) and 1- and 2-year OS rates of 90.1% and 55.9%. No major complications occurred. Complications included eight Grade 1 and two Grade 2 complications. Conclusions: Percutaneous ablation demonstrates clinical efficacy and a favorable safety profile in selected BCLM patients, achieving OS comparable to the current literature. Further studies should clarify its additive role within multimodality treatment.

Purpose To further define anatomic criteria for resection and ablation using an expert panel-based three-dimensional liver model to objectively predict local treatment recommendations for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Materials and Methods This study analyzed data from participants with small CRLM (≤3 cm) considered suitable for resection, thermal ablation, or irreversible electroporation (IRE), according to a multidisciplinary expert panel, who were included in two prospective multicenter trials (COLLISION [NCT03088150] and COLDFIRE-2 [NCT02082782]) between August 2017 and June 2022. Ten randomly selected participants were used to standardize the model's Couinaud segments. CRLM coordinates were measured and plotted in the model as color-coded lesions according to the treatment recommendations. Statistical validation was achieved through leave-one-out cross-validation. Results A total of 611 CRLM in 202 participants (mean age, 63 [range, 29-87] years; 138 male and 64 female) were included. Superficially located CRLM were considered suitable for resection, whereas more deep-seated CRLM were preferably ablated, with the transition zone at a subsurface depth of 3 cm. Ninety-three percent (25 of 27) of perihilar CRLM treated with IRE were at least partially located within 1 cm from the portal triad. Use of the model correctly predicted the preferred treatment in 313 of 424 CRLM (73.8%). Conclusion The results suggest that CRLM can be defined as superficial (preferably resected) and deep-seated (preferably ablated) if the tumor center is within versus beyond 3 cm from the liver surface, respectively, and as perihilar if the tumor margins extend to within 1 cm from the portal triad. Keywords: Ablation Techniques, CT, MRI, Liver, Abdomen/GI, Metastases, Oncology Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.