Skip to main content
Download PDF

Which patients are prone to suffer liver metastasis? A review of risk factors of metachronous liver metastasis of colorectal cancer

European Journal of Medical Research volume 27, Article number: 130 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In recent years, with the increasing incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its high fatality rate, CRC has seized the attention of the world. And liver metastasis, as the main cause of death of CRC, has become the leading cause of treatment failure in CRC, especially metachronous liver metastasis, have caused patients who underwent bowel resection to experience multiple tortures.

Main body

Metachronous liver metastasis has severely affected the quality of life and prognosis of patients. Therefore, in this review, we discuss risk factors for metachronous liver metastasis of CRC, which is the premise for effective intervention for CRC patients who suffer metachronous liver metastasis after undergoing surgery, as well as the signaling pathways associated with CRC.

Conclusion

The occurrence of metachronous liver metastasis is closely related to histology-based prognostic biomarkers, serum-based biomarkers, tumor microenvironment, pre-metastatic niche, liquid biopsy and tissue-based biomarkers. Further research is required to explore the risk factors associated with liver metastasis of CRC.

Introduction

Due to globally increasing morbidity and mortality, more and more attention has been paid to colorectal cancer (CRC). According to GLOBOCAN 2020 statistics, CRC ranks the third most common malignancy in incidence, with more than 1.9 million new cases, whereas the second in cancer-related deaths [1], attributed to metastatic lesions. In general, the liver is the most site for CRC metastasis. Even during the disease course, more than half of CRC cases inevitably develop liver metastasis, of which synchronous liver metastasis may account for 25%. Among 20% of cases without initial metastasis, 1% would develop liver metastasis during one-year follow-up, whereas 15% during 5-year follow-up [2,3,4,5,6,7]. The median survival time (MST) of liver metastasis is generally no more than 12 months, even with aggressive treatment, MST would not exceed 13–18 months [3, 8,9,10]. With the application of targeted therapy using antibodies, MST of liver metastasis is expected to be gradually prolonged. Meanwhile, indicators such as tumor stage, genetic mutations, and lymph node involvement have been proposed to predict prognosis of CRC. However, liver metastasis remains challenging for CRC therapy. There is no consensus as to risk factors for liver metastasis of CRC. For newly diagnosed CRC patients without metastasis, clarifying potential risk factors for liver metastasis is paramount as it could have important clinical implications. In this review, we discuss the risk factors for metachronous liver metastasis in colorectal cancer. The reader is advised to refer to tables for the biomarkers and representative studies discussed in this review (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1 Overview of the studies that have addressed risk factors of the metachronous liver metastasis of CRC
Full size table
Table 2 Overview of risk factors associated with liver metastasis of CRC
Full size table

Histology-based prognostic biomarkers

A large number of studies have demonstrated that patients with liver metastasis at the initial diagnosis have a poorer prognosis than those with metachronous liver metastasis [11, 12]. Even among patients undergoing repeated hepatectomies [13], MST of metachronous metastasis remains superior to synchronous metastasis. In contrast, a recent retrospective study [14] observed no difference in overall survival (OS) between synchronous and metachronous liver metastasis. However, since only patients with primary tumor resection were included in this clinical trial, liver metastasis might have already occurred at the time of initial diagnosis. This indicates that the prognosis of synchronous vs. metachronous liver metastasis might be modulated by liver resection, which remains to be explored and verified.

Lymph node status has been recognized as a prognostic factor for CRC. It is generally believed that primary tumors metastasize to local lymph nodes first, and then metachronous distant metastasis occurs through lymphatic system [15]. Unexpectedly, distant metastasis can also occur in patients with negative lymph nodes [16, 17]. Thus, molecular mechanisms of distant metastasis vary greatly, especially for liver metastasis. When compared clinicopathological features, synchronous liver metastasis had a higher N grade than metachronous liver metastasis [14]. Even though no sign of liver metastasis was identified at the initial diagnosis, if the intestinal tumor had a higher TN grade, postoperative liver metastasis would probably occur [18]. Some patients may develop symptoms later related to increased size and specific location of the primary tumor, which can delay timely diagnosis, leading to local and/or distant metastasis at the time of initial diagnosis. There was no statistical difference in lymph node involvement between patients with synchronous and metachronous liver metastasis [19]. Interestingly, T staging was earlier in metachronous than in synchronous liver metastasis [14]. Moreover, lymph node involvement and vascular invasion have been identified as risk factors for recurrent liver metastasis in patients who had undergone curative resection [20, 21].

In addition, most previous studies have suggested that the difference between metachronous and synchronous liver metastasis relied on location, size and differentiation of the primary tumor [14, 22]. Nevertheless, some studies identified no difference in clinicopathology, except relationship of primary tumor size with CEA [19, 23].

In 2001, Vermeulen et al. [24] proposed liver metastasis as a heterogeneous tumor and classified CRC liver metastasis into 3 growth patterns, i.e., pushing, desmoplastic and replacement, based on histological differences. Subsequently, international consensus guidelines of liver metastasis applied this new classification on histopathological growth patterns (HGPs) which differentiate cancerous from normal liver cells [25]. Importantly, in subsequent retrospective studies, HGPs of liver metastasis were closely related to original features of primary tumors. Expanding CRC was more likely to develop into desmoplastic liver metastasis; replacement liver metastasis was more likely to be caused by infiltration CRC. Compared with desmoplastic growth pattern, the prognosis of replacement growth pattern was much worse [26]. In addition, HGPs might correlate with gene expression of primary tumors [27]. For example, HGPs, low tumor budding score (TBS), and Crohn’s disease-like response (CDR) in combination with primary CRC could predict growth patterns of liver metastasis, and PIK13CA expression was upregulated in primary CRC with desmoplastic liver metastasis. More specific molecular biological principles remain to be explored.

Serum-based biomarkers

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)

CEA, a tumor-associated antigen expressed on the surface of cancer cells originated from endoderm, is a structural protein of cell membrane. In CRC, CEA-positive rate is no less than 90% [28]. CEA has been recognized as an independent prognostic factor for CRC, associated with recurrence [23, 29,30,31,32,33]. Several studies identified no relationship of CEA with tumor stage and liver metastasis, due to limitations in sample size and statistical method [23, 34].

Regardless of different sites of recurrence or metastasis, CEA was closely related to the liver [33, 35, 36]. At present, CEA detection has become a routine procedure both before and after surgery, as an indispensable indicator to predict prognosis of CRC patients. There are many speculations about CEA-mediated tumor liver metastasis, and whether CEA is released into the blood by the primary tumor or the metastatic lesion is unclear. Primrose et al. [37] and Wang et al. [38] proposed that preoperative CEA level was an independent prognostic factor for CRC, however, if liver metastasis was the only predictor for adverse prognosis was unclear. In addition, preoperative serum CEA level was statistically significant with occurrence of metachronous liver metastasis [20]. Conversely, a retrospective cohort study enrolled 434 patients suffered from rectal cancer, and only postoperative serum CEA level was considered to be a risk factor for postoperative metachronous liver metastasis [39]. However, many previous studies proposed that both the preoperative and postoperative CEA levels indicated the tendency of CRC patients to develop systemic distant metastasis. Thus, preoperative increase in CEA might affect the spread of postoperative tumor. Significant increase in CEA after operation might affect the recurrence and survival of CRC [40,41,42].

As far as we know, CEA is eliminated in the liver, so as long as the metabolic function of the liver is impaired, a high level of serum CEA may present even in benign diseases [43, 44]. For example, in a mouse model of alcoholic liver disease, alcohol-damaged liver provides microenvironment for CRC liver metastasis through CEA-mediated inflammatory pathways [45]. For patients with pathologically confirmed CRC, CEA is produced by the primary tumor and released into the bloodstream, which then induces the production of proangiogenic factors in the liver tissue, affects the biological behaviors of proangiogenic endothelial cells, and participates in signal transduction in endothelial cells. CEA-mediated signaling pathways are conducive to microvascular invasion and distant metastasis [46, 47].

A retrospective analysis including 425 patients who diagnosed with relapsed or metastatic CRC reported that elevated CEA serum level was related to synchronous (but not metachronous) metastasis of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with poor prognosis [48]. However, undeniable association between metachronous liver metastasis and increased CEA has been widely recognized. Inevitable false negatives and false positives will cause confusion to accurate diagnosis of metachronous liver metastasis [49].

In recent years, combination of CEA with hydroxylated collagen peptide in urine has improved the sensitivity of detecting liver metastasis [50, 51]. The combination of CEA with aneuploidy (leading to changes in nuclear DNA content by rearrangement) may become a predictor of metachronous liver metastasis [52]. These new biomarkers are expected to be applied in clinical practice.

Tumor microenvironment and pre-metastatic niche

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a chronic non-specific intestinal inflammatory disease, is a common precancerous lesion with 10–18% chance of developing CRC [53,54,55]. In the context of IBD, excessive inflammatory cells infiltrate the intestinal wall. Inflammatory pathways are overactivated and inflammatory factors trigger a series of immune reaction. With the development of disease, tissue homeostasis unbalance occurs. Inflammatory factors provide a suitable environment for tumor growth, which greatly increases the possibility of dysplasia and malignant transformation of intestinal epithelial cells [54, 56, 57]. The development of serrated epithelial polyp from normal intestinal epithelium in response to prolonged inflammation subsequently enhances abnormal proliferation of intestinal tract [58]. In addition, inflammatory factors are involved in distant metastasis. A retrospective study performed immunohistochemistry on surgically resected CRC specimens and identified cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2), expressed only in tumor but not normal epithelial tissue, as a risk factor for metachronous liver metastasis [59].

Moreover, circulating inflammatory markers are associated with aggressiveness of CRC and may serve as predictors of metachronous liver metastasis [57, 60,61,62]. During tumor invasion, metastatic cascade is characterized by local invasion to adjacent tissues and consequent spreading to secondary organs [57, 63, 64]. Tumor cells are supported by microenvironment in order to proliferate and metastasize. Tumor cells, in turn, affect microenvironment of target organs before reaching the metastatic site. Specific microenvironment created in advance for subsequent metastasis is called pre-metastatic niche [65]. The specific mechanism of pre-metastatic niche is not yet clear. Before metastatic niche is formed in the liver, tumor cells need to break through the liver’s self-protection system, and prioritize inflammatory microenvironment, making tumor cells more prone to spread and invade. Therefore, increased inflammatory cytokines indicate a higher risk of liver metastasis. The liver host microenvironment plays an important role in tumor invasion and progression [45]. Furthermore, miRNAs transported by tumor-delivered exosomes (miRNAs-TEXs) are involved in establishing metastatic niches in the liver. Importantly, TEXs can predict metachronous metastasis [66].

Chemokines are chemotactic cytokines specifically bound to G-protein-coupled receptors, which can promote migration and colonization of inflammatory cells (such as white blood cells) towards tumor sites [67]. In CRC, macrophages stimulate the primary tumor to produce CXCL1, a member of CXC chemokines, binding to CXCR2 together with CXCL2, CXCL5, and CXCL8. CXCL1 promotes formation of tumor micro-vessels, as well as pre-metastatic niche upon positive feedback of CXCL1–CXCR2 axis, resulting in liver metastasis [68, 69]. CXCR4 is the most widely expressed chemokine receptor, activated after specific binding to CXCL12 (also known as SDF-1). CXCL12–CXCR4 participates in a variety of cellular activities, including tumor proliferation, survival, vascularization and metastasis, which plays a promoting role in developing liver metastasis in CRC [70,71,72,73,74,75]. No expression of SDF-1 was detected in normal liver tissue, while SDF-1 was expressed in primary tumor and liver metastasis in CRC [76]. Furthermore, CXCL16 is a risk factor for metachronous liver metastasis. CXCL8, CCL2 and CCL15 also correlate with occurrence and prognosis of distant metastasis of CRC [77,78,79,80].

As for tumor microenvironment in the liver, the density of mononuclear inflammatory cells infiltrating in primary tumor can be in proportion to that in metastatic lesion [81]. Although clinically common inflammatory indicators (CRP, lymphocytes, and CRP/lymphocytes) had no significant association with postoperative liver metastasis, they carried significance for prognosis [82, 83]. CRP was higher in CRC than that in control, however, IL-6 and CRP levels were not associated with liver metastasis [84]. Conversely, Lee et al. [85] and Calon et al. [86] supported relationship of IL-6 or IL-11 with CRC liver metastasis. In addition, during the formation of pre-metastatic niche in the liver, serum microRNAs-200c (miR-200c), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), macrophage-colony stimulating factor (M-CSF) were upregulated [87,88,89,90]. Theoretically, pre-metastatic niche has already been established before tumor cells arrive at a specific metastasis site. However, it is difficult to detect pre-metastatic niche by conventional imaging in clinical practice. Therefore, to identify biomarkers involved in pre-metastasis niche and to discover tumor invasion as early as possible are guaranteed for timely treatment.

Liquid biopsy

In recent years, liquid biopsy has gradually become a new alternative strategy to traditional biopsy, through real-time dynamic analysis of tumor composition. To minimize tumor heterogeneity in terms of space and time, liquid biopsy may overcome limitations of traditional biopsy. The most common liquid biopsy relies on circulating tumor cell (CTC) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) [91,92,93]. ctDNA is a DNA fragment released from tumor into blood, carrying information on tumor genome. ctDNA is used for gene mutation analysis and tumor burden assessment [91, 94, 95]. Whether ctDNA is related to metachronous tumor metastasis [96,97,98] is debated [94].

Dispersal of a small number of tumor cells differs from metastasis. Metastasis can occur when highly heterogeneous mutation is initiated and a large number of tumor cells are disseminated. The number of metastatic tumor cells is actually very small and clusters of tumor cells are more likely to metastasize than individual one [95, 99]. CTC is continuously released during tumor development and progression. Similar to ctDNA, CTC may predict prognosis of colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM). At present, CTC is applied to evaluate therapeutic efficacy of metastatic CRC, and to predict postoperative recurrence and survival [100, 101]. CTC is associated with CEA, and considered to be an important marker of CRLM [102, 103]. However, due to unknown cause-and-effect relationship, whether CTC can predict metachronous liver metastasis remains unclear.

Tissue-based biomarkers

At present, selection of targeted therapy and evaluation of drug sensitivity vs. resistance can be achieved according to gene mutation landscape in combination with signaling pathways. Different gene mutational blueprints present in primary tumor and metastasis during tumor development and progression [104]. Furthermore, for synchronous and metachronous primary tumors, genotypes can vary substantially [105]. For CRC patients without initial metastasis at diagnosis or 6 months after surgery, genetic mutation signature may predict metachronous liver metastasis. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a receptor of epidermal growth factor (EGF), involved in cell proliferation and signal transduction. As a member of HER family, EGFR plays an important regulatory role in physiological processes. As a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway receptor, EGFR is overexpressed in CRC (Fig. 1). Upregulation of EGFR is observed in liver metastasis of CRC [106,107,108]. Furthermore, based on gene expression profile of liver metastasis, EGFR was overexpressed in metachronous liver metastasis of CRC [109], but not in synchronous liver metastasis [110].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of EGFR–RAS–RAF–MEK–MAPK pathway, a cellular signaling pathway involved in progression and proliferation of colorectal cancer

Full size image

RAS

RAS gene family (Fig. 1), including KRAS, HRAS and NRAS, is an indicator of prognosis and therapeutic efficacy, with mutation rate of 35–45% in CRC [111, 112]. KRAS, in particular, is frequently mutated (25–52%) in CRC [5]. Mutations in RAS gene had no effect on CRC metastasis [113]. RAS gene expression was consistent between CRC and metastatic lesion. Probably, occurrence of metachronous liver metastasis may be predicted by postoperative genetic mutations [114]. Nevertheless, specific location and pattern of tumor metastasis related to KRAS are always disputed. For example, impact of KRAS mutation was detected in CRC distant metastasis, including liver metastasis [115]. KRAS mutation might more likely predict metastasis to the lung [116], rather than liver [117]. However, KRAS codon 13 mutation might play a role in CRC recurrence [118]. Furthermore, compared with KRAS codon 12, codon 13 mutation had poor prognosis, without distinguishing between metachronous and synchronous [119, 120]. KRAS codon 13 mutation is a risk factor for poor prognosis independent of metachronous distant metastasis [121]. KRAS codon 12 mutation was associated with synchronous metastasis.

B-type RAF kinase (BRAF)

BRAF (Fig. 1), a component of MAPK signaling pathway, has a mutation rate of 8–12% in CRC metastasis, of which more than 90% was derived from V600E [4, 5, 111, 122]. BRAF is recognized clinically as a symbol of poor prognosis, with inferior survival rate. Only a few patients with BRAF mutations can undergo surgery. The MST of mutBRAF/wtKRAS genotype was 26 months [123]. In another clinical study, MST of BRAF-mutated CRC metastasis was only 10.4 months [124]. BRAF-related poor prognosis of CRC at different stages remains controversial. Price et al. [125], Tran et al. [124]. and Cheng et al. [126] reported that BRAF mutation affects prognosis of stage IV CRC. However, BRAF mutation was also associated with poor prognosis of stages II and III CRC [127]. Whether mutated BRAF can be a predictor of metachronous distant metastasis in CRC patients remains mysterious.

Margonis et al. [123] claimed that advanced T stage, metachronous liver metastasis and right-sided primary tumor were more likely caused by mutated BRAF/wild RAS. Non-V600E mutations might correlate with synchronous liver metastasis. Thus, BRAF mutations may be a risk factor for metachronous liver metastasis of CRC. Meanwhile, BRAF V600E mutation in CRC was more likely to occur on the right side [124, 126, 128, 129]. However, as far as we know, the right-sided primary tumor is more commonly to develop lymphatic spread and peritoneal metastasis, while the left-sided CRC is more prone to develop liver and lung metastasis. Similarly, Goldstein et al. [130] and Tran et al. [124] reported that BRAF mutation would increase the risk of lymph node and peritoneal metastasis. Due to relatively low mutation rate and insufficient sample size, patients with V600E mutations often have unresectable CRC tumors. Indeed, BRAF has limitations in predicting metachronous liver metastasis.

Microsatellite instability (MSI)/microsatellite stable (MSS)

BRAF V600E mutation positively correlates with MSI, which is caused by loss of DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) expression [106, 111, 126, 131, 132]. Similar to BARF mutation, MSI is not very common in metastatic CRC. By contrast, dMMR was associated with favorable prognosis [111]. In pathologically diagnosed CRC, MSI had lower risk of liver metastasis compared with MSH [106] (caused by activation of Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway) [133]. MSI is closely related to BRAF, so it is difficult to analyze the effect of MSI on liver metastasis of CRC separately from BRAF. Thus, cross-talk between BRAF and MSI requires further investigation.

PIK3CA and TP53

PIK3CA (Pho-sphoinositide-3-kinase, catalytic, alpha polypeptide) is an important signal transduction factor downstream of EGFR (Fig. 1), with mutation rate of 20%-30% in CRC liver metastasis [27, 105, 134]. PIK3CA may complement and replace BRAF during tumorigenesis. Aggressiveness of CRC is positively associated with co-occurrence of PIK3CA over-activation and APC inhibition [111, 135]. TP53 is a tumor suppressor gene that regulates DNA damage repair and closely related to CRC development. At present, promoting role of TP53 alone in liver metastasis of CRC has not yet been confirmed, however, TP53 and RAS have a synergistic effect and jointly promote liver metastasis [111]. In all, the synergistic effects of signaling pathways in colorectal cancer jointly promote the occurrence of liver metastasis.

HER2 and HER3

Among HER family members, besides EGFR, HER2, HER3 and HER4 also play an important regulatory role in the physiological functions of cells and the pathogenesis of solid tumors. HER2, in particular, is currently recognized as an oncogenic driver and has been proven to be one of the causative genes of breast cancer. The poor prognosis of breast cancer is associated with HER2/neu protein overexpression due to HER2/neu gene amplification, which is similar to colon cancer, and HER2 amplification is used in the treatment of CRC as one of the mechanisms of cetuximab resistance [136, 137]. Sawada et al. [138] analyzed the effect of HER2 status with BRAF and RAS status on the prognosis of mCRC and found that in terms of positivity rate, HER2 amplification was detected in a smaller proportion in RAS wild-type patients than in BRAF wild-type patients. In terms of OS, the ranking from highest to lowest was RAS mutation > HER2 amplification > RAS mutation and HER2 amplification synchronously > BRAF mutation. RAS/BRAF wild type has a better prognosis than HER2 amplification, and the latter has a greater correlation with the prognosis of metastatic CRC. In liver metastatic CRC, HER2 amplification is thought to be associated with younger age and left-sided RAS/RAF wild type [139]. In order to explore the molecules that may be involved in the mechanism of liver metastasis of CRC, Pan et al. [140] analyzed the serological levels of 24 molecules in peripheral veins and draining veins. Multivariate analysis showed that high peripheral blood HER2 level is an independent risk factor for synchronous liver metastasis, and may be a risk factor for metachronous liver metastasis. Although there is no uniform conclusion about the effect of HER2 expression on synchronous and metachronous liver metastasis, does this mean that HER2 expression in primary tumor state can be a key factor in predicting liver metastasis in CRC? It may provide us with new ideas.

In recent years, the expression of not only HER2, but also HER3 in CRC has gradually attracted attention. One study examined the expression status of HER3 in mCRC patients and concluded that there was a moderate correlation between HER3 expression in primary tumors and liver metastasis in CRC, and there was no difference in the expression of HER3 in synchronous and metachronous liver metastasis. Controversially, Styczen et al. [141] enrolled 208 patients with liver metastasis of CRC and analyzed the expression status of HER2 and HER3, suggesting that the expression status of HER2 and HER3 in primary tumors (especially HER3) is closely related to metachronous liver metastasis. HER2 lacks endogenous ligands, it relies on other EGFR family receptors to form heterodimers for activation, of which HER2/HER3 dimer is the most active and plays a core role in activating MAPK pathway and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway in cancer, HER3 overexpression is closely related to HER2, not only that, HER3 steadily plays a role in the progression of CRC [142,143,144].

At present, whether HER3 can be used as a predictor of metachronous liver metastasis is still in the initial stage of research. The high consistency of HER3 in primary tumors and liver metastasis provides a greater possibility for it to be a high-quality predictor.

Conclusion and discussion

Clinically, the depth of primary tumor (T) invasion and lymph node (N) involvement have become indispensable indicators for predicting prognosis of CRC. In addition, tumor differentiation, site, venous or lymphatic invasion, as well as molecular biomarkers are associated with recurrence and prognosis of CRC [145,146,147]. The risk factors associated with metachronous liver metastasis, the most critical factors for postoperative prognosis of CRC, are a topic of ongoing attention by researchers. TN stage, lymph node involvement, vascular invasion, location, size, differentiation of the primary tumor, preoperative serum CEA level and postoperative genetics mutations are widely recognized as risk factors for metachronous liver metastasis, among which KRAS Codon 13 mutation and BRAF mutation are the most closely related indicators of metachronous liver metastasis. In addition to that, postoperative serum CEA level, the combination of CEA with aneuploidy, COX2, miRNAs-TEXs, CXCL1, SDF-1 and CXCL16 are also being considered as risk factors for metachronous liver metastasis. These biomarkers are still in clinical trials, but their similarity to CEA in the occurrence of liver metastasis is gradually being recognized. The application of circulating inflammatory markers and liquid biopsy to predict postoperative metachronous liver metastasis in CRC patients is imminent.

Although liver metastasis has been emphasized in CRC therapy, due to technical limitations, individual differences, and tumor heterogeneity, micro-metastasis is difficult to detect at the time of initial diagnosis. With the development of individualized treatment/precision medicine, adjuvant therapy may enable early diagnosis of liver metastasis. Currently, there is no consensus on defining synchronous or metachronous metastasis. Engstrand et al. [148] included a cohort of 1026 patients, respectively, defined 3-, 6- and 12-month post-diagnosis/surgery as cut-off points, and identified no significant difference in OS. Ueno et al. [149] defined metachronous liver metastasis as 12 months after primary surgery. Quireze et al. [12] and Mekenkamp el at. [14] proposed 6 months after the initial diagnosis of primary CRC as the time of diagnosis with metachronous liver metastasis. In this review, we advocate 6 months postoperatively as the time cutoff for metachronous liver metastasis.

Tumors are of polyclonal origin, which harbor spatial heterogeneity (uneven distribution of key molecular alterations across different regions) and temporal heterogeneity (variation in kind or arrangement of components across time) [150,151,152]. Genotypes should be determined from treatment [105]. For liver metastasis of CRC, diversity of primary tumor caused different biological behaviors, so primary and metastatic lesions are not identical [104, 105, 153]. Gene expression and molecular patterns of synchronous metastasis and metachronous metastasis are different. Synchronous liver metastasis is similar to local invasion, and is more inclined to become a disseminated disease [48]. Metastasis is a different disease state of advanced CRC, which is not the same as simple dissemination of molecules [19]. Moreover, some drugs are only effective for stage IV CRC, demonstrating heterogeneity of tumor biology at different stages [154].

At present, MAPK pathway is the major target for CRC liver metastasis treatment. Patients with metachronous liver metastasis usually receive chemotherapy or targeted therapy. Therefore, for patients who suffer from metachronous liver metastasis as demonstrated by imaging or symptoms, genetic mutation landscape, derived from various primary tumors or driven by secondary targeted therapy-induced mutations, is impossible to verify. Especially after receiving systemic chemotherapy for patients with no distant metastasis after operation, occurrence of metachronous metastasis and timing of metachronous metastasis will influence prognosis. In addition, targeted therapy may modify primary tumor tissue and serological indicators, and cause artificial interference to liver metastasis, and such error is unavoidable.

In conclusion, biomarkers and gene expression associated with metachronous distant metastasis of CRC can be reflected by primary tumor. To monitor patients after primary tumor resection can help early detect distant metastasis, especially liver metastasis. These biomarkers predict metachronous liver metastasis, so that patients' survival rate and quality of life may be improved. Furthermore, more mechanistic research is required to explore the progression of CRC and what factors accelerate the occurrence of metachronous distant metastasis.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

CRC:

Colorectal cancer

mCRC:

Metastatic colorectal cancer

MST:

Median survival time

OS:

Overall survival

HGPs:

Histopathological growth patterns

TBS:

Tumor budding score

CDR:

Crohn’s disease-like response

CEA:

Carcinoembryonic antigen

IBD:

Inflammatory bowel disease

COX2:

Cyclooxygenase-2

miRNAs-TEXs:

MiRNAs transported by tumor-delivered exosomes

miR-200c:

MicroRNAs-200c

PGE2:

Prostaglandin E2

M-CSF:

Macrophage-colony stimulating factor

CTC:

Circulating tumor cell

ctDNA:

Circulating tumor DNA

CRLM:

Colorectal cancer liver metastasis

EGFR:

Epidermal growth factor receptor

EGF:

Epidermal growth factor

MAPK:

Mitogen-activated protein kinase

BRAF:

B-type RAF kinase

MSI:

Microsatellite instability

MSS:

Microsatellite stable

dMMR:

DNA mismatch repair

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ding Q, Chang CJ, Xie X, Xia W, Yang JY, Wang SC, et al. APOBEC3G promotes liver metastasis in an orthotopic mouse model of colorectal cancer and predicts human hepatic metastasis. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(11):4526–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart CL, Warner S, Ito K, Raoof M, Wu GX, Kessler J, et al. Cytoreduction for colorectal metastases: liver, lung, peritoneum, lymph nodes, bone, brain. When does it palliate, prolong survival, and potentially cure? Curr Probl Surg. 2018;55(9):330–79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Nakayama I, Hirota T, Shinozaki E. BRAF mutation in colorectal cancers: from prognostic marker to targetable mutation. Cancers. 2020;12(11):3236.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsilimigras DI, Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I, Bagante F, Moris D, Cloyd J, Spartalis E, et al. Clinical significance and prognostic relevance of KRAS, BRAF, PI3K and TP53 genetic mutation analysis for resectable and unresectable colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review of the current evidence. Surg Oncol. 2018;27(2):280–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kostner AH, Kersten C, Lowenmark T, Ydsten KA, Peltonen R, Isoniemi H, et al. The prognostic role of systemic inflammation in patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases: C-reactive protein (CRP) is a strong negative prognostic biomarker. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114(7):895–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Manfredi S, Lepage C, Hatem C, Coatmeur O, Faivre J, Bouvier AM. Epidemiology and management of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2006;244(2):254–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu L, Fu J, Chen Y, Wang L, Zheng S. Early T stage is associated with poor prognosis in patients with metastatic liver colorectal cancer. Front Oncol. 2020;10:716.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bengmark S, Hafström L. The natural history of primary and secondary malignant tumors of the liver. I. The prognosis for patients with hepatic metastases from colonic and rectal carcinoma by laparotomy. Cancer. 1969;23(1):198–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fong Y. Clinical score for predicting recurrence after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of 1001 consecutive cases. Ann Surg. 1999;230(3):309–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Adam R, de Gramont A, Figueras J, Kokudo N, Kunstlinger F, Loyer E, et al. Managing synchronous liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a multidisciplinary international consensus. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41(9):729–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Quireze Junior C, Brasil AMS, Morais LK, Campion ERL, Taveira EJF, Rassi MC. Metachronous colorectal liver metastases has better prognosis—is it true? Arq Gastroenterol. 2018;55(3):258–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas S, Henrik N, Constantin K, Johannes K, Strowitzki MJ, Büchler M, et al. Prognostic indicators lose their value with repeated resection of colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(10):1610–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mekenkamp LJ, Koopman M, Teerenstra S, van Krieken JH, Mol L, Nagtegaal ID, et al. Clinicopathological features and outcome in advanced colorectal cancer patients with synchronous vs metachronous metastases. Br J Cancer. 2010;103(2):159–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sleeman JP, Cady B, Pantel K. The connectivity of lymphogenous and hematogenous tumor cell dissemination: biological insights and clinical implications. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2012;29(7):737–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Seeberg LT, Brunborg C, Waage A, Hugenschmidt H, Renolen A, Stav I, et al. Survival impact of primary tumor lymph node status and circulating tumor cells in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(8):2113–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Mala T, Bøhler G, Mathisen Ø, Bergan A, Søreide O. Hepatic resection for colorectal metastases: can preoperative scoring predict patient outcome? World J Surg. 2002;26(11):1348–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pool A, Lalmahomed ZS, Özbay Y, Wilt J, Eggermont A, Jzermans J, et al. ‘Staged’ liver resection in synchronous and metachronous colorectal hepatic metastases: differences in clinicopathological features and outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(10 Online):e229–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tsai MS, Su YH, Ho MC, Liang JT, Chen TP, Lai HS, et al. Clinicopathological features and prognosis in resectable synchronous and metachronous colorectal liver metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(2):786–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chuang SC, Su YC, Lu CY, Hsu HT, Sun LC, Shih YL, et al. Risk factors for the development of metachronous liver metastasis in colorectal cancer patients after curative resection. World J Surg. 2011;35(2):424–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. de Ridder JA, Knijn N, Wiering B, de Wilt JH, Nagtegaal ID. Lymphatic invasion is an independent adverse prognostic factor in patients with colorectal liver metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S638-645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zheng P, Ren L, Feng Q, Zhu D, Chang W, He G, et al. Differences in clinical characteristics and mutational pattern between synchronous and metachronous colorectal liver metastases. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:2871–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bockhorn M, Frilling A, Fruhauf NR, Neuhaus J, Molmenti E, Trarbach T, et al. Survival of patients with synchronous and metachronous colorectal liver metastases–is there a difference? J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(8):1399–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vermeulen PB, Colpaert C, Salgado R, Royers R, Hellemans H, Van Den Heuvel E, et al. Liver metastases from colorectal adenocarcinomas grow in three patterns with different angiogenesis and desmoplasia. J Pathol. 2001;195(3):336–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. van Dam PJ, van der Stok EP, Teuwen LA, Van den Eynden GG, Illemann M, Frentzas S, et al. International consensus guidelines for scoring the histopathological growth patterns of liver metastasis. Br J Cancer. 2017;117(10):1427–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Nielsen K, Rolff HC, Eefsen RL, Vainer B. The morphological growth patterns of colorectal liver metastases are prognostic for overall survival. Mod Pathol. 2014;27(12):1641–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu JB, Sarmiento AL, Fiset PO, Lazaris A, Metrakos P, Petrillo S, et al. Histologic features and genomic alterations of primary colorectal adenocarcinoma predict growth patterns of liver metastasis. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(26):3408–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cutait R, Alves VAF, Lopes LC, Cutait DE, Goffi FS. Restaging of colorectal cancer based on the identification of lymph node micrometastases through immunoperoxidase staining of CEA and cytokeratins. Dis Colon Rectum. 1991;34(10):917–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goldstein M, Mitchell EP. Carcinoembryonic antigen in the staging and follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Cancer Invest. 2005;23(4):338–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hara M, Kanemitsu Y, Hirai T, Komori K, Kato T. Negative serum carcinoembryonic antigen has insufficient accuracy for excluding recurrence from patients with Dukes C colorectal cancer: analysis with likelihood ratio and posttest probability in a follow-up study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(11):1675–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Iizasa T, Suzuki M, Yoshida S, Motohashi S, Yasufuku K, Iyoda A, et al. Prediction of prognosis and surgical indications for pulmonary metastasectomy from colorectal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82(1):254–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gold P. Specific carcinoembryonic antigens of the human digestive system. J Exp Med. 1965;122(3):467–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Moertel CG, Fleming M, Macdonald P, Haller M. An evaluation of the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test for monitoring patients with resected colon cancer. JAMA. 1993;270(8):943–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Scholer LV, Reinert T, Orntoft MW, Kassentoft CG, Arnadottir SS, Vang S, et al. Clinical implications of monitoring circulating tumor DNA in patients with colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(18):5437–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fakih MG, Padmanabhan A. CEA monitoring in colorectal cancer. What you should know. Oncology. 2006;20(6):579–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yamamoto M, Maehara Y, Sakaguchi Y, Mine H, Yamanaka T, Korenaga D, et al. Distributions in CEA doubling time differ in patients with recurrent colorectal carcinomas. Hepatogastroenterology. 2004;51(55):147–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Primrose JN, Perera R, Gray A, Rose P, Fuller A, Corkhill A, et al. Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311(3):263–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang WS, Lin JK, Chiou TJ, Liu JH, Fan FS, Yen CC, et al. Preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level as an independent prognostic factor in colorectal cancer: Taiwan experience. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2000;30(1):12–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Khan MS, Bakar MA, et al. Risk factors effecting development of metachronous liver metastasis in rectal cancer patients after curative surgical resection. Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore experience. JPMA J Pak Med Assoc. 2019;69(2):201–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Leventakos K, Lu SS, Perry DJ. Intensive CT scan surveillance for patients who have undergone curative intent treatment for colorectal cancer: The Medstar Washington Hospital Center experience. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(15_suppl):e14675–e14675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Su B-B, Shi H, Wan J, et al. Role of serum carcinoembryonic antigen in the detection of colorectal cancer before and after surgical resection. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;17(v.18):127–32.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Friederichs J, Gertler R, Rosenberg R, et al. Correlation of CK-20-positive cells in peripheral venous blood with serum CEA levels in patients with colorectal carcinoma. World J Surg. 2007;31(12):2329–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Thomas P, Zamcheck N. Role of the liver in clearance and excretion of circulating carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). Dig Dis Sci. 1983;28(3):216–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Authors N. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. Adopted on May 17, 1996 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1996;14(10):2843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mohr AM, Gould JJ, Kubik JL, Talmon GA, Casey CA, Thomas P, et al. Enhanced colorectal cancer metastases in the alcohol-injured liver. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2017;34(2):171–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bramswig KH, Poettler M, Unseld M, Wrba F, Uhrin P, Zimmermann W, et al. Soluble carcinoembryonic antigen activates endothelial cells and tumor angiogenesis. Can Res. 2013;73(22):6584–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. van der Wal GE, Gouw AS, Kamps JA, Moorlag HE, Bulthuis ML, Molema G, et al. Angiogenesis in synchronous and metachronous colorectal liver metastases: the liver as a permissive soil. Ann Surg. 2012;255(1):86–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Colloca GA, Venturino A, Guarneri D. Different variables predict the outcome of patients with synchronous versus metachronous metastases of colorectal cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2020;22(8):1399–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tan E, Gouvas N, Nicholls RJ, Ziprin P, Xynos E, Tekkis PP. Diagnostic precision of carcinoembryonic antigen in the detection of recurrence of colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol. 2009;18(1):15–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Iwasaki H, Shimura T, Kataoka H. Current status of urinary diagnostic biomarkers for colorectal cancer. Clin Chim Acta. 2019;498:76–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lalmahomed ZS, Brker ME, Huizen N, Braak R, Ijzermans JN. Hydroxylated collagen peptide in urine as biomarker for detecting colorectal liver metastases. Am J Cancer Res. 2016;6(2):321–30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Laubert T, Bente V, Freitag-Wolf S, Voulgaris H, Oberlander M, Schillo K, et al. Aneuploidy and elevated CEA indicate an increased risk for metachronous metastasis in colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013;28(6):767–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Lepage MCM, Jooste V, Guéant MJ-L, Faivre J, Bouvier AM. Colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel diseases: a population-based study (1976–2008). J Crohns Colitis. 2012;18(12):2247–51.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jess T, Rungoe C, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Risk of colorectal cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10(6):639–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Margonis GA, Buettner S, Andreatos N, Wagner D, Sasaki K, Galjart B, et al. The prognosis of colorectal cancer liver metastases associated with inflammatory bowel disease: an exploratory analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2018;118(7):1074–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Velayos FS, Jess T, Harmsen WS, Bida J, Zinsmeister AR, et al. Predictive and protective factors associated with colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a case-control study. Gastroenterology. 2006;130(7):1941–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Dmello RS, To SQ, Chand AL. Therapeutic targeting of the tumour microenvironment in metastatic colorectal cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(4):2067.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Parian A, Koh JM, Limketkai B, Jonas A, Eluri S, Rubin DT, et al. Association between serrated epithelial changes and colorectal dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.12.010.

  59. Yamauchi T, Watanabe M, Kubota T, Hasegawa H, Ishii Y, Endo T, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 expression as a new marker for patients with colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(1):98–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Varkaris A, Katsiampoura A, Davis JS, Shah N, Lam M, Frias RL, et al. Circulating inflammation signature predicts overall survival and relapse-free survival in metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2019;120(3):340–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Meads MB, Gatenby RA, Dalton WS. Environment-mediated drug resistance: a major contributor to minimal residual disease. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(9):665–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Perez-Villamil B, Romera-Lopez A, Hernandez-Prieto S, Lopez-Campos G, Calles A, Lopez-Asenjo JA, et al. Colon cancer molecular subtypes identified by expression profiling and associated to stroma, mucinous type and different clinical behavior. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Hapach LA, Mosier JA, Wang W, Reinhart-King CA. Engineered models to parse apart the metastatic cascade. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2019;3(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Pachmayr E, Treese C, Stein U. Underlying mechanisms for distant metastasis—molecular biology. Visc Med. 2017;33(1):11–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Psaila B, Lyden D. The metastatic niche: adapting the foreign soil. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(4):285–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Balacescu O, Sur D, Cainap C, Visan S, Cruceriu D, Manzat-Saplacan R, et al. The impact of miRNA in colorectal cancer progression and its liver metastases. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(12):3711.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Balkwill F. Cancer and the chemokine network. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(7):540–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Yamamoto M, Kikuchi H, Ohta M, Kawabata T, Konno H. TSU68 prevents liver metastasis of colon cancer xenografts by modulating the premetastatic niche. Can Res. 2008;68(23):9754–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Bandapalli OR, Ehrmann F, Ehemann V, Gaida M, Macher-Goeppinger S, Wente M, et al. Down-regulation of CXCL1 inhibits tumor growth in colorectal liver metastasis. Cytokine. 2012;57(1):46–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Zlotnik A. Chemokines and cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;119(9):2026–9.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Goodwin TJ, Zhou Y, Musetti SN, Liu R, Huang L. Local and transient gene expression primes the liver to resist cancer metastasis. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(364):364ra153.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Kollmar O, Rupertus K, Scheuer C, Junker B, Tilton B, Schilling MK, et al. Stromal cell-derived factor-1 promotes cell migration and tumor growth of colorectal metastasis. Neoplasia. 2007;9(10):862–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Murakami T, Kawada K, Iwamoto M, Akagami M, Hida K, Nakanishi Y, et al. The role of CXCR3 and CXCR4 in colorectal cancer metastasis. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(2):276–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kim J. Chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in colorectal cancer patients increases the risk for recurrence and for poor survival. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(12):2744–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Zeelenberg IS, Lisette R, Ed R. The chemokine receptor CXCR4 is required for outgrowth of colon carcinoma micrometastases. Cancer Res. 2003;63(13):3833–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Amara S, Chaar I, Khiari M, Ounissi D, Weslati M, Boughriba R, et al. Stromal cell derived factor-1 and CXCR4 expression in colorectal cancer promote liver metastasis. Cancer Biomark. 2015;15(6):869–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Asfaha S, Dubeykovskiy AN, Tomita H, Yang X, Stokes S, Shibata W, et al. Mice that express human interleukin-8 have increased mobilization of immature myeloid cells, which exacerbates inflammation and accelerates colon carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(1):155–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Itatani Y, Kawada K, Fujishita T, Kakizaki F, Hirai H, Matsumoto T, et al. Loss of SMAD4 from colorectal cancer cells promotes CCL15 expression to recruit CCR1+ myeloid cells and facilitate liver metastasis. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(5):1064-1075.e11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Inamoto S, Itatani Y, Yamamoto T, Minamiguchi S, Hirai H, Iwamoto M, et al. Loss of SMAD4 promotes colorectal cancer progression by accumulation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells through CCL15-CCR1 chemokine axis. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(2):492–501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Zhao L, Su YL, Gordon-Weeks AN, Tapmeier TT, Im JH, Cao Y, et al. Recruitment of a myeloid cell subset (CD11b/Gr1mid) via CCL2/CCR2 promotes the development of colorectal cancer liver metastasis. Hepatology. 2013;57(2):829–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Shibutani M, Maeda K, Nagahara H, Fukuoka T, Ohira M. A comparison of the local immune status between the primary and metastatic tumor in colorectal cancer: a retrospective study. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):371.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Taniai T, Haruki K, Hamura R, Fujiwara Y, Furukawa K, Gocho T, et al. The prognostic significance of C-reactive protein-to-lymphocyte ratio in colorectal liver metastases. J Surg Res. 2021;258:414–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Turri G, Barresi V, Valdegamberi A, Gecchele G, Conti C, Ammendola S, et al. Clinical significance of preoperative inflammatory markers in prediction of prognosis in node-negative colon cancer: correlation between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and poorly differentiated clusters. Biomedicines. 2021;9(1):94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Kwon KA, Kim SH, Oh SY, Lee S, Han JY, Kim KH, et al. Clinical significance of preoperative serum vascular endothelial growth factor, interleukin-6, and C-reactive protein level in colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2010;10(1):203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Lee JW, Stone ML, Porrett PM, Thomas SK, Komar CA, Li JH, et al. Hepatocytes direct the formation of a pro-metastatic niche in the liver. Nature. 2019;567(7747):249–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Calon A, Espinet E, Palomoponce S, Tauriello D, Iglesias M, Céspedes M, et al. Dependency of colorectal cancer on a TGF-β-driven program in stromal cells for metastasis initiation. Cancer Cell. 2013;22(2):571–84.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Toiyama Y, Hur K, Tanaka K, et al. Serum miR-200c is a novel prognostic and metastasis-predictive biomarker in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2014;259(4):735–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Pastushenko I, Brisebarre A, Sifrim A, Fioramonti M, Revenco T, Boumahdi S, et al. Identification of the tumour transition states occurring during EMT. Nature. 2018;556(7702):463–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Leuning DG, Beijer N, Fossé N, Vermeulen S, Lievers E, Kooten CV, et al. The cytokine secretion profile of mesenchymal stromal cells is determined by surface structure of the microenvironment. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):7716.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Cen B, Lang JD, Du Y, Wei J, Dubois RN. Prostaglandin E2 induces MIR675-5p to promote colorectal tumor metastasis via modulation of p53 expression. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(4):971-984.e10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Mas L, Bachet JB, Taly V, Bouche O, Taieb J, Cohen R, et al. BRAF mutation status in circulating tumor DNA from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: extended mutation analysis from the AGEO RASANC Study. Cancers. 2019;11(7):998.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Silva VSE, Abdallah EA, Brito ABC, Braun AC, Tariki MS, de Mello CAL, et al. Baseline and kinetic circulating tumor cell counts are prognostic factors in a prospective study of metastatic colorectal cancer. Diagnostics. 2021;11(3):502.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Siravegna G, Marsoni S, Siena S, Bardelli A. Integrating liquid biopsies into the management of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(9):531–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Osumi H, Shinozaki E, Takeda Y, Wakatsuki T, Ichimura T, Saiura A, et al. Clinical relevance of circulating tumor DNA assessed through deep sequencing in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Med. 2019;8(1):408–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Adwan H, Georges R, Pervaiz A, Berger MR. Investigation of metastasis-related genes: a rat model mimicking liver metastasis of colorectal carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2017;7:152.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Tie J, Kinde I, Wang Y, Wong HL, Roebert J, Christie M, et al. Circulating tumor DNA as an early marker of therapeutic response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(8):1715–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Yamada T, Iwai T, Takahashi G, Kan H, Koizumi M, Matsuda A, et al. Utility of KRAS mutation detection using circulating cell-free DNA from patients with colorectal cancer. Cancer Sci. 2016;107(7):936–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Vidal J, Muinelo L, Dalmases A, Jones F, Edelstein D, Iglesias M, et al. Plasma ctDNA RAS mutation analysis for the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(6):1325–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Mizukoshi K, Okazawa Y, Haeno H, Koyama Y, Sulidan K, Komiyama H, et al. Metastatic seeding of human colon cancer cell clusters expressing the hybrid epithelial/mesenchymal state. Int J Cancer. 2020;146(9):2547–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Tie J, Cohen JD, Wang Y, Christie M, Simons K, Lee M, et al. Circulating tumor DNA analyses as markers of recurrence risk and benefit of adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(12):1710–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Das A, Kunkel M, Joudeh J, Dicker DT, Scicchitano A, Allen JE, et al. Clinico-pathological correlation of serial measurement of circulating tumor cells in 24 metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving chemotherapy reveals interpatient heterogeneity correlated with CEA levels but independent of KRAS and BRAF mutation. Cancer Biol Ther. 2015;16(5):709–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Kaifi JT, Kunkel M, Dicker DT, Joude J, Allen JE, Das A, et al. Circulating tumor cell levels are elevated in colorectal cancer patients with high tumor burden in the liver. Cancer Biol Ther. 2015;16(5):690–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Rahbari NN, Bork U, Schölch S, Reissfelder C, Thorlund K, Betzler A, et al. Metastatic spread emerging from liver metastases of colorectal cancer: does the seed leave the soil again? Ann Surg. 2016;263(2):345–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Bouchahda M, Karaboué A, Saffroy R, Innominato P, Gorden L, Guettier C, et al. Acquired KRAS mutations during progression of colorectal cancer metastases: possible implications for therapy and prognosis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010;66(3):605–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Balschun K, Haag J, Wenke AK, von Schonfels W, Schwarz NT, Rocken C. KRAS, NRAS, PIK3CA exon 20, and BRAF genotypes in synchronous and metachronous primary colorectal cancers diagnostic and therapeutic implications. J Mol Diagn. 2011;13(4):436–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Del Carmen S, Corchete LA, Gervas R, Rodriguez A, Garcia M, Alcazar JA, et al. Prognostic implications of EGFR protein expression in sporadic colorectal tumors: correlation with copy number status, mRNA levels and miRNA regulation. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):4662.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Rego RL, Foster NR, Smyrk TC, Le M, O’Connell MJ, Sargent DJ, et al. Prognostic effect of activated EGFR expression in human colon carcinomas: comparison with EGFR status. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(1):165–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Spano JP, Lagorce C, Atlan D, Milano G, Domont J, Benamouzig R, et al. Impact of EGFR expression on colorectal cancer patient prognosis and survival. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(1):102–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Pantaleo MA, Astolfi A, Nannini M, Paterini P, Piazzi G, Ercolani G, et al. Gene expression profiling of liver metastases from colorectal cancer as potential basis for treatment choice. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(10):1729–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Huang CW, Tsai HL, Chen YT, Huang CM, Ma CJ, Lu CY, et al. The prognostic values of EGFR expression and KRAS mutation in patients with synchronous or metachronous metastatic colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2013;13(1):599–599.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Yamashita S, Chun YS, Kopetz SE, Vauthey JN. Biomarkers in colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg. 2018;105(6):618–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Siena S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F, Balfour J, Bardelli A. Biomarkers predicting clinical outcome of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(19):1308–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Sharma N, Saifo M, Tamaskar IR, Bhuvaneswari R, Mashtare T, Fakih M. KRAS status and clinical outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with first-line FOLFOX chemotherapy. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2010;1(2):90–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Jo P, Bernhardt M, Nietert M, Konig A, Azizian A, Schirmer MA, et al. KRAS mutation status concordance between the primary tumor and the corresponding metastasis in patients with rectal cancer. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(10): e0239806.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Yaeger R, Cowell E, Chou JF, Gewirtz AN, Borsu L, Vakiani E, et al. RAS mutations affect pattern of metastatic spread and increase propensity for brain metastasis in colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2015;121(8):1195–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Kim MJ, Lee HS, Kim JH, Yu JK, Ji HK, Lee JO, et al. Different metastatic pattern according to the KRAS mutational status and site-specific discordance of KRAS status in patients with colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012;12(1):347.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Cho M, Akiba C, Lau C, Smith D, Telatar M, Afkhami M, et al. Impact of RAS and BRAF mutations on carcinoembryonic antigen production and pattern of colorectal metastases. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;8(1):128–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Frankel TL, Vakiani E, Nathan H, DeMatteo RP, Kingham TP, Allen PJ, et al. Mutation location on the RAS oncogene affects pathologic features and survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases. Cancer. 2017;123(4):568–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Modest DP, Stintzing S, Laubender RP, Neumann J, Jung A, Giessen C, et al. Clinical characterization of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer depending on the KRAS status. Anticancer Drugs. 2011;22(9):913–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Bazan V, Migliavacca M, Zanna I, Tubiolo C, Grassi N, Latteri MA, et al. Specific codon 13 K-ras mutations are predictive of clinical outcome in colorectal cancer patients, whereas codon 12 K-ras mutations are associated with mucinous histotype. Ann Oncol. 2002;13(9):1438–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Feng Q, Li L, Li R, Chen J, Xu J. A specific KRAS codon 13 mutation is an independent predictor for colorectal cancer metachronous distant metastases. Am J Cancer Res. 2015;5(2):674–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Sclafani F, Gullo G, Sheahan K, Crown J. BRAF mutations in melanoma and colorectal cancer: a single oncogenic mutation with different tumour phenotypes and clinical implications. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;87(1):55–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Margonis GA, Buettner S, Andreatos N, Kim Y, Wagner D, Sasaki K, et al. Association of BRAF mutations with survival and recurrence in surgically treated patients with metastatic colorectal liver cancer. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(7): e180996.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Tran B, Kopetz S, Tie J, Gibbs P, Jiang ZQ, Lieu CH, et al. Impact of BRAF mutation and microsatellite instability on the pattern of metastatic spread and prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(20):4623–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Price TJ, Hardingham JE, Lee CK, Weickhardt A, Townsend AR, Wrin JW, et al. Impact of KRAS and BRAF gene mutation status on outcomes from the phase III AGITG MAX trial of capecitabine alone or in combination with bevacizumab and mitomycin in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(19):2675–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Cheng HH, Lin JK, Chen WS, Jiang JK, Yang SH, Chang SC. Clinical significance of the BRAFV600E mutation in Asian patients with colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018;33(9):1173–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Roth AD, Tejpar S, Delorenzi M, Yan P, Fiocca R, Klingbiel D, et al. Prognostic role of KRAS and BRAF in stage II and III resected colon cancer: results of the translational study on the PETACC-3, EORTC 40993, SAKK 60–00 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(3):466–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Clarke CN, Kopetz ES. BRAF mutant colorectal cancer as a distinct subset of colorectal cancer: clinical characteristics, clinical behavior, and response to targeted therapies. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2015;6(6):660–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Samowitz WS, Sweeney C, Herrick J, Albertsen H, Levin TR, Murtaugh MA, et al. Poor survival associated with the BRAF V600E mutation in microsatellite-stable colon cancers. Can Res. 2005;65(14):6063–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Goldstein J, Tran B, Ensor J, Gibbs P, Wong HL, Wong SF, et al. Multicenter retrospective analysis of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) with high-level microsatellite instability (MSI-H). Ann Oncol. 2014;25(5):1032–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Weisenberger DJ, Siegmund KD, Campan M, Young J, Long TI, Faasse MA, et al. CpG island methylator phenotype underlies sporadic microsatellite instability and is tightly associated with BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer. Nat Genet. 2006;38(7):787–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, Sobrero A, Van Krieken JH, Aderka D, et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(8):1386–422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Neumann JH. Prognostic biomarkers for metastatic colorectal cancer. Pathologe. 2016;37(Suppl 2):180–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Yamashita S, Chun YS, Kopetz SE, Maru D, Conrad C, Aloia TA, et al. APC and PIK3CA mutational cooperativity predicts pathologic response and survival in patients undergoing resection for colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg. 2020;272(6):1080–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Eachkoti R, Farooq S, Syeed SI, Wani HA, Majid S, Pampori MR. Prevalence and prognostic relevance of BrafV600E mutation in colorectal carcinomas from Kashmir (North India) valley. Mutagenesis. 2018;33(3):225–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Nathanson DR, Culliford ATT, Shia J, Chen B, Alessio M, Zeng ZS, Nash GM, Gerald W, Barany F, Paty PB. HER 2/neu expression and gene amplification in colon cancer. Int J Cancer. 2003;105:796–802.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Jeong JH, Kim J, Hong YS, Kim D, Kim JE, Kim SY, Kim KP, Yoon YK, Kim D, Chun SM, et al. HER2 amplification and cetuximab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer harboring wild-type RAS and BRAF. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2017;16:e147–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Sawada K, Nakamura Y, Yamanaka T, Kuboki Y, Yamaguchi D, Yuki S, Yoshino T, Komatsu Y, Sakamoto N, Okamoto W, Fujii S. Prognostic and predictive value of HER2 amplification in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2018;17:198–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Han J, Wang X, Zhang C, Wu Q, Ma X, Li Y, Chen Z, Zhang R, Zhang G, Lin J, et al. Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of HER2 status in surgically resected colorectal liver metastases. J Surg Oncol. 2022;125:991–1001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Pan HD, Peng YF, Xiao G, Gu J. High levels of serum platelet-derived growth factor-AA and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 are predictors of colorectal cancer liver metastasis. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:1233–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Styczen H, Nagelmeier I, Beissbarth T, et al. HER-2 and HER-3 expression in liver metastases of patients with colorectal cancer. Oncotarget. 2015;6(17):15065–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Lédel F, Stenstedt K, Hallström M, Ragnhammar P, Edler D. HER3 expression in primary colorectal cancer including corresponding metastases in lymph node and liver. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(4):480–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. Guarini C, Grassi T, Pezzicoli G, Porta C. Beyond RAS and BRAF: HER2, a new actionable oncotarget in advanced colorectal cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(13):6813.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. Seo AN, Kwak Y, Kim WH, Kim DW, Kang SB, Choe G, Lee HS. HER3 protein expression in relation to HER2 positivity in patients with primary colorectal cancer: clinical relevance and prognostic value. Virchows Arch. 2015;466:645–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Haq AI, Schneeweiss J, Kalsi V, Arya M. The Dukes staging system: a cornerstone in the clinical management of colorectal cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(11):1128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Gijn WV, Stiphout RV, Van D, Valentini V, Lammering G, Gambacorta MA, et al. Nomograms to predict survival and the risk for developing local or distant recurrence in patients with rectal cancer treated with optional short-term radiotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(5):928.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Valentini V, Stiphout R, Lammering G, Gambacorta MA, Lambin P. Nomograms for predicting local recurrence, distant metastases, and overall survival for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer on the basis of European randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29(23):3163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Engstrand J, Stromberg C, Nilsson H, Freedman J, Jonas E. Synchronous and metachronous liver metastases in patients with colorectal cancer-towards a clinically relevant definition. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):228.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. Ueno H, Mochizuki H, Hatsuse K, Hase K, Yamamoto T. Indicators for treatment strategies of colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg. 2000;231(1):59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Ulintz PJ, Greenson JK, Wu R, Fearon ER, Hardiman KM. Lymph node metastases in colon cancer are polyclonal. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(9):2214–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Zellmer VR, Zhang S. Evolving concepts of tumor heterogeneity. Cell Biosci. 2014;4(1):69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  152. Filip S, Vymetalkova V, Petera J, Vodickova L, Kubecek O, John S, et al. Distant metastasis in colorectal cancer patients-do we have new predicting clinicopathological and molecular biomarkers? A comprehensive review. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(15):5255.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Hunter KW, Amin R, Deasy S, Ha NH, Wakefield L. Genetic insights into the morass of metastatic heterogeneity. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018;18(4):211–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Kumar R, Price TJ, Beeke C, Jain K, Patel G, Padbury R, et al. Colorectal cancer survival: an analysis of patients with metastatic disease synchronous and metachronous with the primary tumor. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2014;13(2):87–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant #82170525) and Beijing Shijitan Hospital Professionals Training Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncology Surgery, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Tieyilu 10 Yangfangdian, Haidian, Beijing, 100038, People’s Republic of China

    Mengdi Hao, Kun Wang, Yuhan Ding, Huimin Li, Yin Liu & Lei Ding

  2. Department of Oncology Surgery, Ninth School of Clinical Medicine, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Mengdi Hao, Kun Wang, Yuhan Ding, Huimin Li, Yin Liu & Lei Ding

Authors
  1. Mengdi Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuhan Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huimin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yin Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lei Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MH initially started this review, organized the literature and drafted the article. LD made critical revisions and contributed to drafting parts of the manuscript. KW and YL retrieved literatures, collected and sorted crucial information. HL and YD provided instructions on writing, as well as retrieving literatures, and made insightful revisions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lei Ding.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hao, M., Wang, K., Ding, Y. et al. Which patients are prone to suffer liver metastasis? A review of risk factors of metachronous liver metastasis of colorectal cancer. Eur J Med Res 27, 130 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00759-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00759-z

Keywords

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

Contact us