Hepatic metastases in ovarian cancer

Hepatic metastases in ovarian cancer

Ying Shan, Ying Jin, Lingya Pan

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Clinical Research Center for Obstetric & Gynecologic Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Correspondence to: Ying Jin. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Clinical Research Center for Obstetric & Gynecologic Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100730, China. Email: jinying@pumch.cn.

Submitted Oct 14, 2022. Accepted for publication Nov 10, 2022.

doi: 10.21037/hbsn-22-484

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal disease among gynecologic malignancies (1); about 1/4 of ovarian cancer patients are in stage IV when diagnosed. For ovarian epithelial cancer patients with stage IV disease, the mean overall survival (OS) is around 20 months, and the 5 year-OS is about 20%. About 1 in 5 patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer have hepatobiliary involvement.

Complete resection of tumors in cytoreductive surgery (CRS) is the most important prognostic factor for ovarian cancer patients. R0 liver resection (LR) is a part of R0 CRS. As part of CRS, LR has been shown to be safe and to prolong survival. In 1963, Brunschwig described the role of LR for liver metastasis of uterine cancer (2). In 1997, Chi (3) reported a series of metastatic gynecologic malignancies which were subjected to LR, among which 7 cases were diagnosed with ovarian cancer. In the past 2 decades, successful reports after LR of metastatic disease from colorectal tumors has encouraged gynecologists to introduce LR as a part of CRS for ovarian cancer with hepatic involvement. Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS have improved in patients who have undergone LR, regardless of the types of primary tumors.

In patients with ovarian cancer, liver parenchymal metastasis (LPM) and liver parenchymal invasion (LPI) are 2 types of liver involvement. LPI develops from perihepatic or diaphragmatic peritoneal metastases. It is important for gynecologic oncologists to differentiate LPM from LPI; LPM is classified as stage IVB disease and is a kind of hematogenous metastases with shorter survival, whereas LPI is a kind of peritoneal implanted disease which does not adversely affect prognosis. The definition of LPI is still not clear at present. It has been defined as a diaphragmatic or perihepatic peritoneal implant with at least 2 cm of invasion into the liver with an irregular or obliterated lesion-liver interface, which replaces part of the liver parenchyma (4). Patients with LPI should be treated the in the same way as those with LPM. For LPI lesions less than 4 cm in diameter, wedge resections without distinguishing the segmental anatomy are often used for preservation of liver volume. For tumors requiring the resection of one liver segment, nonmajor anatomic resection will minimize blood loss and allow a safe excision. In ovarian cancer, segmentectomy of 5 or 6 segments is more commonly needed. Patients may benefit from this more conservative approach because of the preservation of liver volume. To achieve a safe resection, techniques include the use of portal triad clamping selectively, keeping low intravascular volumes during parenchymal transection, hemostasis, and biliostasis with caution. A hepatobiliary surgeon is recommended for this procedure. Considering the goal of optimal cytoreduction for ovarian cancer, there are still controversies regarding whether a resection margin greater than 1 cm is needed, especially in patients with LPI. In recent years, minimally invasive laparoscopic LR has also benefited patients with liver involvement (5). The most common complication of surgery is pleural effusions, and other rare complications include bleeding, liver abscess, and bile or pancreatic leakage.

Some other treatments have been reported in recent years for patients with comorbidities or disease that cannot achieve R0 resection, such as extensive abdominal metastasis, bilateral liver lobe extensive metastasis, or patients with poor performance status. Conservative treatments include thermal ablation techniques and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), computed tomography-guided high dose-rate brachytherapy (CT-HDRBT), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Thermal ablation techniques in liver surgery include thermal radiofrequency (RFA) or microwave (MWA) ablation, and laser-induced thermotherapy (LITT) (6,7).

TACE is a conservative and safe minimally invasive treatment for liver metastasis in ovarian cancer, which is a technique involving infusion of chemotherapy drugs and embolization particles into the local artery. Patients with tumors that are unresectable or unresponsive to chemotherapy are candidates for TACE. It is considered as a choice to control intrahepatic metastases, and it has fewer complications (8). For patients with higher risks of anesthesia or surgery, such as multiple or large metastases, or tumors in the central area of liver parenchyma, RFA can be accomplished in a minimally invasive fashion. By using an electrode, it delivers a special current to the tissue surrounding the tumor leading to necrosis. This treatment is not suggested for tumors greater than 5 cm because the incomplete necrosis will lead to higher recurrence rates.

MWA is another thermal ablation technique. To achieve a large ablation volume, it increases intratumoral temperature by using electromagnetic energy in the microwave spectrum. Similar to RFA, a higher rate of recurrence has been found with patients received MWA, so patients with lesions larger than 3 cm are not good candidates (9). LITT uses thin flexible fibers and a water-cooled applicator to induce therapeutic coagulation via laser light. A bare fiber makes a necrotic sphere and a diffuser fiber produces ablation (10).

In conclusion, if R0 resection can be achieved, LR is the best choice for ovarian cancer patients with liver involvement. Other conservative treatments, such as thermal ablation techniques, TACE, and CT-HDRBT, are recommended for patients who are not eligible for surgery.


Funding: This work is supported by National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding 2022-PUMCH-C-045.


Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://hbsn.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/hbsn-22-484/coif). The authors report that this work is supported by National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding 2022-PUMCH-C-045. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.


  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Brunschwig A. Hepatic lobectomy for metastatic cancer. Cancer 1963;16:277-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Chi DS, Fong Y, Venkatraman ES, et al. Hepatic resection for metastatic gynecologic carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol 1997;66:45-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. O'Neill AC, Somarouthu B, Tirumani SH, et al. Patterns and Prognostic Importance of Hepatic Involvement in Patients with Serous Ovarian Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience with 244 Patients. Radiology 2017;282:160-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Giglio MC, Troisi RI. Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal liver metastases: moving forward while keeping feet on the ground. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2021;10:107-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Joharatnam-Hogan N, Khan K. Thermal ablation in colorectal liver metastases-the paradox of equipoise. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2021;10:276-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Jabbar F, Syblis C, Sucandy I. The use of thermal ablation in the treatment of colorectal liver metastasis-proper selection and application of technology. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2021;10:279-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Vogl TJ, Naguib NN, Lehnert T, et al. Initial experience with repetitive transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as a third line treatment of ovarian cancer metastasis to the liver: indications, outcomes and role in patient's management. Gynecol Oncol 2012;124:225-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Shibata T, Iimuro Y, Yamamoto Y, et al. Small hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of radio-frequency ablation and percutaneous microwave coagulation therapy. Radiology 2002;223:331-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Vogl TJ, Emam A, Naguib NN, et al. How Effective Are Percutaneous Liver-Directed Therapies in Patients with Non-Colorectal Liver Metastases? Viszeralmedizin 2015;31:406-13. [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Shan Y, Jin Y, Pan L. Hepatic metastases in ovarian cancer. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2022;11(6):924-926. doi: 10.21037/hbsn-22-484

Download Citation