Significance of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with an oxaliplatin-based regimen after simultaneous curative resection for colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastasis: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND: Expansion of the indication for liver resection and new regimens for systemic chemotherapy have improved postoperative outcomes for synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). However, such cases can still have a high recurrence rate, even after curative resection. Therefore, there is a need for postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (POAC) after liver resection in patients with CRLM. There are few studies of the efficacy of POAC with an oxaliplatin-based regimen after simultaneous resection for colorectal cancer and CRLM with curative intent. The goal of the study was to compare POAC with oxaliplatin-based and fluoropyrimidine regimens using propensity score (PS) matching analysis. METHODS: The subjects were 94 patients who received POAC after simultaneous resection for colorectal cancer and synchronous CRLM, and were enrolled retrospectively. The patients were placed in a L-OHP (+) group (POAC with an oxaliplatin-based regimen, n = 47) and a L-OHP (−) group (POAC with a fluoropyrimidine regimen, n = 47). Recurrence-free (RFS), cancer-specific (CSS), unresectable recurrence-free (URRFS), remnant liver recurrence-free (RLRFS), and extrahepatic recurrence-free (EHRFS) survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Before PS matching, the L-OHP (+) and (−) groups had no significant differences in RFS, CSS, URRFS, RLRFS, and EHRFS. Univariate analysis indicated significant differences in age, preoperative serum CEA (≤ 30.0 ng/mL/ > 30.0 ng/mL), differentiation of primary tumor (differentiated/undifferentiated), T classification (T1–3/T4), number of hepatic lesions and maximum diameter of the hepatic lesion between the L-OHP (+) and (−) groups. After PS matching using these confounders, RFS was significantly better among patients in the L-OHP (+) group compared with the L-OHP (−) group (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17–0.96, p = 0.04). In addition, there was a trend towards better RLRFS among patients in the L-OHP (+) group compared with the L-OHP (−) group (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17–1.02, p = 0.055). However, there were no significant differences in CSS, URRFS and EHRFS between the L-OHP (+) and (−) groups. CONCLUSIONS: PS matching analysis demonstrated the efficacy of POAC with an oxaliplatin-based regimen in RFS and RLRFS.