• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Impact of primary tumour location on colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review

    2020-06-19 06:33:54GeorgeBinghamAlyshaShetyeReenaSureshRezaMirnezami
    World Journal of Clinical Oncology 2020年5期

    George Bingham, Alysha Shetye, Reena Suresh, Reza Mirnezami

    Abstract

    Key words: Liver metastasis; Colorectal cancer; Location; Primary tumour; Outcome

    INTRODUCTION

    Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer subtype world-wide with over 1 million new cases diagnosed in 2018[1]. Metastatic disease represents the primary cause of mortality in CRC, and up to 25% of patients are found to have synchronous metastases at the time of diagnosis. A further 40% will develop metachronous disease and approximately 25%-30% of patients will develop liver metastases in the course of follow-up[2]. Indications for curative intent treatment of CRC liver metastases (CRCLM) have expanded rapidly over the last three decades,and several key factors have led to improvements in outcome, notably enhanced radiological detection, improved chemotherapeutic efficacy and more aggressive surgical treatment[3]. With modern combined-modality treatment approaches, 5-year survival in excess of 50% has been reported in selected patients with CRCLM[4].Clinico-pathological factors believed to be associated with worse oncological outcome in CRCLM include the presence of synchronous metastases, bi-lobar liver involvement, metastases > 5 cm in size, and the presence of extra-hepatic disease[4,5]. It has also been suggested by a number of authors that primary tumour location (PTL) -right side versus left side, can influence patterns of hepatic metastatic dissemination and survival[6,7]. For example, a number of studies have demonstrated inferior oncological outcome in patients undergoing surgical resection of CRCLM with rightsided versus left-sided colonic primary tumours[8-10]. This has not been a consistent observation, and others have shown no clear association[11,12]. The aim of the present systematic review is to provide a summary of the available evidence on the impact of PTL on oncological outcomes in patients with CRCLM.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Identification of studies

    An electronic literature search was carried out using MEDLINE (1965 to March 2020),EMBASE (1980 to March 2020) and the Cochrane Library databases. The medical subject heading terms and key words used are as follows: “Colon” or “rectal cancer”,“l(fā)iver metastasis” or “l(fā)iver metastases” or “hepatic metastasis” or “hepatic metastases” and “l(fā)eft” and “Right”. Studies, abstracts and citations were scanned for relevance. The latest date of this search was 27 March 2020. The publications deemed relevant were read in full and assessed for inclusion and their references scanned to identify papers not identified in the initial search.

    Inclusion criteria

    The methodology was designed around the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” recommendations for improving the standard of systematic reviews[13].

    Studies meeting the following criteria were included for review: (1) Language: Full article accessible in English language only; Conference abstracts only were excluded.(2) Patient population: Studies reporting outcomes in ≥ 10 male/female patients aged≥ 18 years with colorectal cancer and liver metastases. Where multiple publications were identified covering overlapping periods of time from the same institution/research group, the most recent and/or relevant data were selected for inclusion, and (3) Outcome measures: Studies were included if they reported oncological outcome data such as overall survival (OS), progression-free survival(PFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) or disease-free survival (DFS). Studies reporting oncological outcomes for metastatic colorectal cancer were excluded if results were not reported for liver metastases specifically. Patients with metastases at multiple sites were included if one site was liver.

    Data extraction

    Three authors (Bingham G, Shetye A, Suresh R) independently extracted the following data from eligible studies: First author, year of publication, country of origin, study type, number of patients by gender, site of primary and age, primary study endpoint(s), secondary endpoint(s), extent and distribution of liver metastases,follow-up duration, adjuvant/neoadjuvant management, overall survival,progression-free survival, recurrence-free survival. Where there was uncertainty regarding inclusion a second author was consulted for consensus. All papers included were graded according to level of evidence using the system proposed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network[14]. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow-diagram summarising the above search strategy is provided in Figure 1.

    RESULTS

    A total of 4094 potentially relevant publications were initially identified through the search strategy summarised in Figure 1. After screening of titles and abstracts, 3700 publications were withdrawn, leaving 394 articles for full text review. A reference search from these articles identified a further 26 studies of potential relevance. Of the 420 full text publications that were evaluated, 41 studies, including a total of 18426 patients, were found to meet our predefined inclusion criteria and were included in the review process. Study characteristics from these 41 studies are summarised in Table 1. Study population in these studies ranged from 24 to 3125 patients. Studies comprised two cohort prospective studies[15,16](evidence level 2+) and 39 retrospective studies (evidence level 2+ - 2++)[8-12,17-50], this included 6 papers with pooled analysis(evidence level 2+-2++)[10,12,15,16,18,49]. There were no randomised controlled trials.

    Overall survival

    Data on the influence of PTL on OS in CRCLM was provided by 38 of the studies included for review, including a total of 18203 patients. In 21 of these studies (13897 patients -76.3% of the total patient population captured) a statistically significant trend was observed with improved OS in patients with left sided primary tumours undergoing treatment for CRCLM (l-CRCLM). For example, Wanget al[17]in their study of 1508 patients receiving surgical treatment for synchronous CRCLM, of which 593 had right sided primary colorectal tumours (r-CRCLM), found a significant difference in 5-year OS between left and right sided primaries (l-CRCLM 40.1%,r-CRCLM 24.6%,P< 0.001). They also found that patients withr-CRCLM were more likely to be T4 (31.3%vs20.1%,P< 0.001) N2 (42.5%vs31.8%,P< 0.001), and poorly differentiated (30.5%vs15.1%,P< 0.001). Creasyet al[9]in a similar cohort of 907 patients (36% with right sided primaries) undergoing hepatic resection found a found a median OS of 5.2 years inl-CRCLM compared with 3.6 years with inr-CRCLM (P=0.004), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.22 (P= 0.028) on multivariate analysis. In their population database study of 3125 patients in Sweden Norénet al[18]found thatl-CRCLM extended median OS by 4 mo (P= 0.02) compared withr-CRCLM. In addition, the authors reported enhanced 5-year OS (45.8%vs44.5%P= 0.02), with a HR of 0.75 forl-CRCLM (P< 0.001).

    Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram summarising study selection process.

    A further 17 studies with 4306 patients found no statistically significant difference in OS between the two groups, but there was a trend towards longer OS in patients withl-CRCLM on the whole. For example, Gasseret al[12]found patients with al-CRCLM had 22 mo longer median overall survival compared tor-CRCLM (P= 0.051).This contrasts with only 2 studies that showed lower OS in patients withl-CRCLM study, Dulunduet al[19]and Viganòet al[20], but neither with statistical significance (P=0.072 andP< 0.05 respectively). These results are summarised in Table 2.

    Disease-free survival

    Benefit in DFS was also suggested, but not as convincingly as OS. This data was more sparsely provided, as some authors opted to alternatively provide PFS. Four studies including 3013 patients showed improved DFS inl-CRCLM. Russolilloet al[21]found improved median DFS by almost 1 year (32.7 movs20.8 mo,P= 0.002) in their 364 patients withl-CRCLM (vs322 patients withr-CRCLM) when assessing patterns of recurrence and survival following resection of liver metastases. In 2017 Heiseet al[22]reported a DFS benefit in patients withl-CRCLM undergoing repeat hepatectomy after recurrence of colorectal cancer (HR: 0.19,P= 0.001). Liaoet al[10]studied 1442 patients with stage III CRC who went on to develop CRCLM, and found that patients with left-sided colon cancer had better 3-year DFS (70.9%vs66.5%,P= 0.033)compared to those withr-CRCLM.

    In contrast to these observations, only one study by Sasakiet al[23]found significantly improved 3-year DFS in patients withr-CRCLM (28%vs20.2%,P=0.001) in their study of 426 patients who were undergoing curative intent hepatectomy.

    Thirteen studies with 3423 patients showed no significant difference in DFS betweenl-CRCLM andr-CRCLM. These results are summarised in Table 3.

    Progression-free survival

    Only five publications provided data on PFS, and these data are summarised in Table 4. These studies including 2805 patients showed significantly improved PFS inl-CRCLM versusr-CRCLM. For example, de Haaset al[24]showed in 726 patientsundergoing hepatic resection for CRCLM, that patients withl-CRCLM had a higher 5-year PFS (18%vs16%,P= 0.009). No papers give significant evidence to the contrary and only one study with 63 patients showing no significant difference[25].

    Table 1 Summary of characteristics of included studies

    Table 2 Overall survival data

    DISCUSSION

    The data summarised in this systematic review appear to support the suggestion that CRCLM arising from right-sided colorectal primary tumours are associated withinferior OS compared with those arising from the left-sided CRC. Specifically, 21 of the 38 studies that provided data on OS reported statistically significant inferior OS in patients withr-CRCLM. Liaoet al[10]for example demonstrated in their large study of 1442 patients that patients withl-CRCLM had better 5-year OS, 5-year cancer-specific survival, and 5-year RFS, all with statistical significance. In 2018 Yamashitaet al[26]similarly concluded in their cohort of 725 patients undergoing upfront hepatic resection, that there was a significant survival benefit to havingl-CRCLM, but that this benefit was no longer evident after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The relationship between primary site and DFS and PFS with CRCLM is less clear, though again there appears to be a trend towards improved oncological outcome inl-CRCLM. Explaining these variations in oncological outcome is likely to require a deeper understanding of the underlying molecular and embryological differences associated with primary tumour sidedness.

    Table 3 Disease free survival data

    There are subtleties in regards to variable oncological outcome identified in this review that merit further discussion. For example, in terms of DFS, Sasakiet al[23]reported interesting findings in terms of patterns of relapse withl-CRCLM compared withr-CRCLM. Specifically, in their study patients withl-CRCLM exhibited a shorter disease-free interval compared with patients who had undergone treatment forr-CRCLM (P= 0.01). However, irrespective of timing of relapse, and in spite of a longer disease-free interval, when patients withr-CRCLM did succumb to hepatic recurrence, it was consistently found to be with more advanced disease (> 4 recurrent lesions,P< 0.01). As a result, the authors found significantly reduced OS and significantly reduced survival after recurrence inr-CRCLM, compared withl-CRCLM.Thus it is conceivable, for reasons as yet unclear, that the liver is able to “hold off”recurrence of hepatic metastases arising from right-sided primaries for longer, but also that when this does finally occur, it is a more aggressive pattern of progression,leading to the paradoxical observation in some studies of seemingly favourable disease free interval, but ultimately inferior OS withr-CRCLM.

    Previously the suggestion has been made that the typically more indolent course of presentation of right CRC, might in part be responsible for inferior outcome with resulting liver metastases[10]. The notion here is that delayed diagnosis of primary tumour results in an increased risk of developing synchronous metastases which are then incurable[51]. This would mean potentially fewer curative-intent resections offeredto these patients, resulting in observed abbreviated survival. However, in this study we have also shown that there is evidence that PTL also has prognostic impact in patients with unresectable disease from the outset. For example, Zhouet al[27]reported on outcomes in 295 patients with unresectable CRCLM undergoing palliative radiofrequency ablation, and found similar rates of OS, but that the PFS was significantly better in patients withl-CRCLM (HR: 0.67,P= 0.012). Guet al[28]also reported outcomes following palliative-intent radio-frequency ablation in patients with CRCLM, finding that patients withl-CRCLM had a significantly lower risk of recurrence outside of the ablation zone, with increased OS of 40.3 mo compared with 29.4 mo inr-CRCLM(P= 0.042). Multivariate analysis confirmed a HR of 6.2 (P=0.001) forr-CRCLM predicting OS. This data is further supported by findings reported by Chafaiet al[29]in 2005, who studied patients with unresected synchronous liver metastases after resection of the primary tumour. They found a significantly shorter survival in palliative patients who hadr-CRCLM compared withl-CRCLM (2 years survival 9.9%vs22.2%, HR: 1.5P< 0.001). In circumstances where palliative/debulking surgery is offered, differences continue to persist for l-CRCLM versus r-CRCLM. For example, in 2017 Zhanget al[30]found that hepatic palliative resection prolonged median OS by 8 mo in patients withl-CRCLM (palliative resectionvsno resection: 22 movs14 mo,P= 0.009); however, by comparison no such improvement in OS was observed for patients withr-CRCLM undergoing palliative resection (12 movs10 mo,P= 0.910).

    Table 4 Progression free survival data

    With regards to defining putative mechanistic explanations for these differences, a number of factors should be considered. Firstly, there is considerable evidence that right sided CRCs are significantly more likely to harbor negative prognostic features;they tend to present at a more advanced stage, often in older patients, with a greater chance of synchronous metastatic disease, are more likely to carry unfavourable genetic mutation(s), and show poor differentiation[18,21,27,31,52]. It could therefore follow that patients with right sided CRC simply present with more advanced and aggressive disease from the outset. This however was not a uniform finding across the studies included in this review. For example, Creasyet al[9]found no such differences between right sided versus left sided CRC in terms of proportion of patients with the largest metastasis > 5 cm, proportion of patients with multiple metastases, or the proportion of patients with extra-hepatic disease. In spite of this relative equipoise,the authors reported significantly improved OS in patients withl-CRCLM and suggest that unique differences based on sidedness are likely to exist that extend beyond the aforementioned conventionally accepted differences.

    From this perspective a number of mechanisms have emerged that could play a role in contributing to the inferior oncological outcome observed in patients withr-CRCLM. These broadly can be considered as: (1) Molecular differences; (2)Histopathological differences; (3) Therapeutic sensitivity differences; and (4)Embryological differences.

    Molecular differences

    There are well-established molecular differences between right- and left-sided CRC with the former more often exhibitingKRASand/orBRAFmutation[12,33,34,53]. RAS mutations have consistently been found to be associated with more aggressive tumour biology and are identified in up to 45% of patients with metastatic CRC. For example, the studies published by Amikuraet al[32]and Shindohet al[54]both demonstrate that RAS mutational status is associated with significantly worse survival in CRCLM (Amikuraet al[32]: 5-year OS: 42.4%vs65.3%,P= 0.0006; Shindohet al[54]: 3-year DFS 59.9vs83.6%P= 0.016). Of note, it has also been reported that among patients put forward for curative intent resection of CRCLMs, the incidence of RAS mutation is only around 10%-15%, indicating that underlying tumour biology,seemingly inseparably linked to PTL, exerts additional prognostic relevance as it appears to indirectly influence surgical candidacy[55]. Goffredoet al[56]evaluated outcomes in 2655 patients undergoing CRCLM resection. They observed a significant increase in likelihood of mutant KRAS with right-sided PTL, compared to left and correspondingly found reduced OS in patients withr-CRCLM. It is likely that additional molecular drivers are responsible for the variations seen according to PTL,and RAS/BRAF likely account for only part of the molecular landscape especially since only a limited proportion of these cases are put forward for resection[54]. This notion is supported by Huanget al[57]who found no significant association between KRAS/BRAF mutational status and prognosis in patients presenting with metachronous CRCLM.

    The role of mismatch repair (MMR) status and microsatellite instability (MSI) in the context of PTL seems less certain. Right sided CRC is more frequently associated with deficient MMR and MSI[7,56,58]. These tumours tend to be typified by poor differentiation, mucinous features and lymphocytic invasion. Evidence supports the suggestion that MSI is associated with improved oncological outcome[59,60]. However,this is at odds with the findings of the present review, wherer-CRCLM appears to have shortened survival. This may reflect fundamental differences in MMR status according to tumour stage. For example, Jernvallet al[61]found MSI to be a more common finding in right sided Stage II CRC, but this was less frequently observed in stage IV disease. In this review molecular data were only available from a limited number of publications and subdivision of molecular phenotype according to PTL has not been provided in most cases. Hence, we are not able to draw any more definitive conclusions on the precise interplay between molecular factors and PTL. Considering these limitations, The Cancer Genome Atlas Network sought to evaluate a broader panel of genetic mutations and defined cases as “hypermutated” where a mutation rate of > 12/106bases was found. Out of 276 samples analysed, the majority of hypermutated cases were right sided primary tumours. The group suggest that hypermutated phenotype is a significant negative prognostic feature, and this may in part account for inferior survival withr-CRCLM, as noted in the present review[62].

    Histological differences

    Several investigators have evaluated tumour histopathological features in order to determine if the difference in sidedness outcomes and tumour aggressiveness can be explained by one or more of these. Desmoplastic growth behaviour, presence of poorly differentiated clusters and tumour budding have all been considered[25,41,63].Strong evidence, however, relates to the prevalence of mucinous elements. Viganòet al[20]and Russolilloet al[21]have both demonstrated mucinous adenocarcinoma to be more prevalent in right-sided CRC (P= 0.002 andP= 0.001, respectively). Viganòet al[20]reported significantly shortened OS withr-CRCLM versusl-CRCLM. They observed that, when compared with non-mucinous carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma has a higher KRAS mutation rate 61.8%vs36.4%;P= 0.037) and lower chemotherapy response rate (63.9%vs85.2%;P= 0.006). Specifically, Viganòet al[20]reported lower 5-year OS (33.2%vs55.2%;P= 0.010) and DFS (32.5%vs49.3%;P= 0.037) for mucinous tumours undergoing hepatic resection. One can extrapolate from these observations that inferior survival and right sided PTL are linked by an increased tendency for mucinous histology.

    Therapeutic sensitivity differences

    There are also suggestions in the literature that chemosensitivity is important in predicting survival, and that there may be a differing chemosensitivity profile according to PTL. In their meta-analysis of 16 first-line trials evaluating the efficacy of chemotherapy alonevschemotherapy with targeted biologics in patients with unresectable metastatic CRC, Youet al[64]found survival of patients with right sided CRC was inferior to those with left in patients receiving chemotherapy alone,implying that right-sided tumours overall are less chemosensitive. This finding is supported by Yamashitaet al[26]found thatr-CRCLM were independently associated with “minor pathological response” (defined as cancer cells accounting for ≥ 50% of residual cells), and were thus less sensitive to chemotherapy with worse RFS and OS.Interestingly, Marqueset al[11]found that when selecting patients for CRCLM resection based on chemosensitivity, the survival disadvantage seen withr-CRCLM was eliminated. This suggests fundamental differences in tumour biology with the less chemosensitive phenotype more frequently seen with right-sided PTL and in turn associated with poorer survival.

    This difference is maintained after the addition of well-established antiangiogenic biologics. Youet al[64]found inferior survival in patients withr-CRCLM receiving chemotherapy and bevacizumab compared withl-CRCLM. Zhenget al[31]studied the effect of cetuximab as an addition to chemotherapy in KRAS wild-type patients with initially unresectable hepatic metastases. They found a survival benefit to cetuximab in patients with bothr-CRCLM andl-CRCLM, but importantly noted that this effect was more substantial in the latter, with higher rates of effective tumour downstaging and extended OS.

    Embryological differences

    In terms of embryology, Yamashitaet al[26]suggest that the mid-gut embryological origin of the right colon may be responsible for the variable responsiveness ofr-CRCLM to chemotherapy and differing oncological outcomes. Specifically, in their study of outcomes in 725 patients, they found reduced responsiveness to chemotherapy, reduced RFS and reduced OS in patients withr-CRCLM. The authors reported that this difference was maintained irrespective of RAS mutational status,which is considered to be one of the key oncogenic differences between right- and leftsided colon cancers. It is possible however, that other factors centered around the distinct development of these regions of gut, including unique lymphatic and venous drainage basins, and exposures to unique types of bacterial flora, could be contributing to oncological variability. This is an area that requires further research.

    Limitations

    As a systematic review this paper has some inherent limitations, it is restricted by the quality of the literature available. However, all included papers were graded using the SIGN criteria with small studies excluded to mitigate this. Care was taken to perform a complete literature search, but studies and some work in progress may have been missed. Larger studies and well as future meta-analysis will be necessary to more clearly establish this trend and may provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms at play.

    In conclusion, the present review provides compelling data to support the notion that PTL significantly influences oncological outcome in patients with CRCLM.Overall, the data presented indicate that patients withr-CRCLM appear to have truncated overall, disease-free and progression-free survival. Some of these differences are likely to be accounted for by molecular heterogeneity, but other factors such as embryological origin and colonic microbiotal composition are areas that have received comparatively less attention in terms of research, and these may represent promising avenues to explore in the future. With the understanding that PTL could have prognostic relevance, comes the need to adjust treatment pipelines for patients accordingly. For example, patients with right-sided CRC may require abbreviated intervals between surveillance scans and tumour-marker assessment after primary tumour resection. In addition, given their more aggressive pattern of recurrence after hepatic resection/treatment, patients withr-CRCLM may benefit from a more radical first-line treatment of hepatic metastases. For example, the role of non-anatomical resection and the use of locally-ablative techniques inr-CRCLM may need more careful consideration.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer related death with liver being the most common metastatic site. It has been long suggested that left and right sided primary tumours exhibit different behaviour but relatively little has been written about how this relates specifically to outcomes in colorectal cancer with liver metastases (CRCLM).

    Research motivation

    To improve current understanding regarding the impact of PTL on CRCLM given the relative paucity of information in this area. This in turn could have a significant impact on patient morbidity and mortality.

    Research objectives

    To ascertain whether there is a significant difference in oncological outcome in patients with CRCLM depending on PTL and to present some hypotheses that may explain any differences found. This systematic review demonstrates a significant difference in outcomes based on PTL with inferior oncological outcome for patients with right-sided CRC. . Further work is needed to better characterise the mechanisms responsible for this variation in order to inform clinical decision making.

    Research methods

    A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane and Embase using the Terms “The medical subject heading terms and key words used are as follows: “Colon” or “rectal cancer”, “l(fā)iver metastasis”or “l(fā)iver metastases” or “hepatic metastasis” or “hepatic metastases” and “l(fā)eft” and “Right”.This search was combined with a bibliographic search to find the relevant publications and extract data from these papers. The methodology was based around the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ recommendations for systematic reviews

    Research results

    Twenty-one studies with a total of 18203 patients showed a statistically significant trend of improved overall survival in patient with left sided primary tumours undergoing treatment for colorectal cancer liver metastases (l-CRCLM). Four studies including 3013 patients showed improved disease free survival (DFS) inl-CRCLM. Only five publications provided data on progression free survival (PFS). These studies including 2805 patients showed significantly improved PFS inl-CRCLMvs r-CRCLM. The findings of this review are congruent with the accepted premise of superior survival in left sided colorectal cancer, and uniquely show that this remains true in the context of metastatic liver disease. We highlight a number of factors that may contribute to this, including KRAS/BRAF mutational status, presence of mucinous elements, and impaired chemosensitivy –all which are shown to be associated with right-sided PTL. The exact interplay between these known factors, PTL, and the emerging new mutations and molecular markers is yet to be determined and work needs to be done to determine the importance of PTL within the conglomeration.

    Research conclusions

    The findings of this review indicate that PTL may have a role as an independent prognostic factor when determining treatment and disease surveillance strategies specifically in colorectal cancer that has metastasised to the liver. We find improved survival for both resected and unresectablel-CRCLM as well as a maintained trend after addition of biologics to established chemotherapy regimens. Hepatic recurrence after treatment of CRCLM appears to occur more aggressively with right-sided CRC, conferring significantly reduced survival. Explaining these variations in oncological outcome requires a deeper understanding of the underlying molecular and embryological differences associated with primary tumour sidedness. Microsatellite instability, interestingly, whilst more common in right-sided tumours, has been shown to be independently associated with improved survival – a finding somewhat incongruent with the overall picture of inferior survival inr-CRCLM. This suggests alternative mechanisms beyond MMR and microsatellite instability are likely to be involved. KRAS and BRAF mutational status,mucinous adenocarcinoma, and impaired chemosensitivity are all known to be significantly associated with right-sided CRC, and we show here that this association and the accompanying inferior survival persists inr-CRCLM. A better understanding of the role of PTL in the oncological outcomes of metastatic CRC may allow for improved risk stratification and redesigned patient pathways.

    Research perspectives

    There is a considerable amount of data available on the oncological outcomes of patients undergoing liver resection for CRCLM, as related to PTL. This shows with convincing evidence that outcomes are superior for patients withl-CRCLM. Future research should be focused on gathering associated molecular and genetic data as related to PTL to better understand the tumour biology of right-sided CRC. This may allow the determination of ideal molecular markers, both for risk stratification/prognostication, and that may be used as potential therapeutic targets.

    亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 深夜精品福利| 身体一侧抽搐| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 国产主播在线观看一区二区| av福利片在线观看| 亚洲在线观看片| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 成人三级黄色视频| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产综合懂色| 99热这里只有精品一区| 99久国产av精品| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 久久久久九九精品影院| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看 | 99热精品在线国产| xxxwww97欧美| 欧美成人a在线观看| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| av天堂在线播放| 免费av不卡在线播放| 99热精品在线国产| 国产单亲对白刺激| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 91麻豆av在线| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 在线观看一区二区三区| 悠悠久久av| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 国产视频内射| 亚洲av一区综合| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产老妇女一区| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 一本精品99久久精品77| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 九色成人免费人妻av| 亚洲精品在线美女| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 99热6这里只有精品| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 亚洲无线在线观看| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 国产av不卡久久| 美女黄网站色视频| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 欧美午夜高清在线| 少妇丰满av| 美女黄网站色视频| 精品乱码久久久久久99久播| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲 | av天堂在线播放| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 99热这里只有精品一区| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 久久九九热精品免费| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 日本a在线网址| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久 | 一级黄片播放器| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 色播亚洲综合网| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 黄色一级大片看看| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 午夜久久久久精精品| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 久久性视频一级片| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 久久久成人免费电影| 亚洲av.av天堂| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美 | 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 天堂网av新在线| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 伦精品一区二区三区| 亚洲无线观看免费| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 亚洲国产精品999| 特级一级黄色大片| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 免费大片18禁| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 亚洲,一卡二卡三卡| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 下体分泌物呈黄色| av在线app专区| 男女那种视频在线观看| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| av在线老鸭窝| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 内射极品少妇av片p| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 亚洲av.av天堂| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| a级毛色黄片| av在线老鸭窝| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 国产成人aa在线观看| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 欧美区成人在线视频| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| av在线播放精品| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 久久影院123| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 国产成人aa在线观看| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 色播亚洲综合网| 春色校园在线视频观看| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 伦理电影大哥的女人| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| freevideosex欧美| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 免费观看av网站的网址| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 精品久久久精品久久久| 免费少妇av软件| 91久久精品电影网| 欧美另类一区| 久热久热在线精品观看| 国产成人精品福利久久| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 日本一本二区三区精品| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 亚洲av一区综合| 免费看av在线观看网站| 丝袜喷水一区| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 日日撸夜夜添| 韩国av在线不卡| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| av免费在线看不卡| 51国产日韩欧美| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 一级毛片 在线播放| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 午夜免费观看性视频| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 精品久久久噜噜| 黄色一级大片看看| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 国产色婷婷99| 内地一区二区视频在线| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 综合色av麻豆| 免费av毛片视频| 久久99精品国语久久久| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲最大成人av| 97超视频在线观看视频| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 91久久精品电影网| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 97在线视频观看| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 青春草国产在线视频| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 国产毛片在线视频| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 中文欧美无线码| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃 | 国产精品一区www在线观看| 日日啪夜夜爽| 九草在线视频观看| 一区二区三区精品91| 国产精品三级大全| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 亚洲不卡免费看| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 男人舔奶头视频| 九色成人免费人妻av| 婷婷色综合www| 亚洲不卡免费看| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 少妇的逼好多水| 99久国产av精品国产电影| av黄色大香蕉| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 99热这里只有精品一区| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 只有这里有精品99| 精品一区在线观看国产| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 亚洲在线观看片| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 亚洲av男天堂| videossex国产| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 大香蕉久久网| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 亚洲精品第二区| 赤兔流量卡办理| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 精品久久久久久久久av| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 一级爰片在线观看| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 国产男女内射视频| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频 | 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 亚洲图色成人| 在线a可以看的网站| 亚洲国产av新网站| 成人无遮挡网站| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 中国三级夫妇交换| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 免费少妇av软件| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 在现免费观看毛片| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 国产成人aa在线观看| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 只有这里有精品99| 午夜免费鲁丝| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 三级经典国产精品| 精品一区二区免费观看| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 婷婷色综合www| 中文字幕久久专区| 国产永久视频网站| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 久久久成人免费电影| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| freevideosex欧美| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 亚洲不卡免费看| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线 | 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| av黄色大香蕉| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 观看美女的网站| videos熟女内射| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 欧美性感艳星| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 22中文网久久字幕| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品 | 国产毛片在线视频| www.色视频.com| 51国产日韩欧美| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 高清av免费在线| 一级av片app| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 久久久午夜欧美精品| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 在现免费观看毛片| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 国产乱来视频区| 在线天堂最新版资源| 在线观看国产h片| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| videossex国产| 在线播放无遮挡| 亚洲国产av新网站| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 色网站视频免费| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂 | 国产久久久一区二区三区| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| av在线观看视频网站免费| 日本一二三区视频观看| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 一级毛片 在线播放| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 极品教师在线视频| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 中国国产av一级| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 日韩成人伦理影院| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 在线观看三级黄色| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 精品午夜福利在线看| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 午夜福利在线在线| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站 | 久久午夜福利片| 久热久热在线精品观看| 一级毛片我不卡| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 少妇高潮的动态图| 久久影院123| 欧美潮喷喷水| 色吧在线观看| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 免费av观看视频| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 赤兔流量卡办理| 大码成人一级视频| 日日啪夜夜爽| 精品国产乱码久久久久久小说| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 永久免费av网站大全| 欧美成人a在线观看| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 舔av片在线| 成人欧美大片| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 97热精品久久久久久| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 97在线视频观看| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 日本色播在线视频| 超碰97精品在线观看| 亚洲精品,欧美精品| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 在线免费十八禁| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| kizo精华| av一本久久久久| 少妇的逼水好多| 97在线视频观看| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 精品久久久久久久久av| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 一级片'在线观看视频| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| tube8黄色片| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 国产高清三级在线| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 一级毛片 在线播放| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 中文字幕久久专区|