Gender-based variations in surgical management of colorectal liver metastases: comprehensive analysis

• DOI: 10.1186/s12885-025-13612-3
• Publication Date: 2025-02-21T08:12:03Z
• Authors: Pia F. Koch; Kristina Ludwig; Karl H. Hillebrandt; Hannes Freitag; Moritz Blank; Sebastian Knitter; Dominik Paul Modest; Felix Krenzien; Georg Lurje; Wenzel Schöning; Johann Pratschke; Igor M. Sauer; Simon Moosburner; Nathanael Raschzok
• Keywords: Surgical oncology; Colorectal Surgery

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer with liver metastasis affects both men and women. However, therapeutic strategies long-term outcomes could be influenced by patients’ sex, due to variations in tumour biology, lifestyle, dietary habits. By conducting a comprehensive comparative analysis, this study aims detail differences characteristics, postoperative complications, recurrence rates, survival between sexes. Methods Single-centre retrospective analysis 2010 2022 of all patients undergoing surgery for colorectal metastases (CRLM) at the Department Surgery, Charité– Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Patients were stratified sex. Statistical was performed using R V4.2. Results We analysed 642 who underwent hepatic resections CRLM. Baseline patient characteristics comparable sexes: significant ( p < 0.001) noted body mass index (BMI), females exhibiting lower BMIs (median BMI females: 23.7 kg/m² vs. males: 26.5 kg/m²). Primary locations varied significantly = 0.008), presenting more sigmoid colon tumours (37%), while males predominantly had rectal (35%). RAS mutation rates higher (54%) than (34%, 0.005). A prevalence bilobar evident (62%, 0.011), yet surgical techniques complications showed distributions. The time resection longer 304 min 290 females); however, conversion open took place often (5.2% 2.3% males). Postoperative no Conclusion Distinct sex-related patterns CRLM observed, emphasizing need further investigations understand address gender-based disparities personalized clinical management future. Trial registration This research conducted ethical approval from relevant institutional review board Ethikkommission der Berlin’ (reference numbers EA2/006/16 EA4/084/17). No other applied.