# Does portal vein anatomy influence intrahepatic distribution of metastases from colorectal cancer?

## TL;DR

This study investigates whether the anatomy of the portal vein affects where colorectal cancer spreads in the liver.

## Contribution

The study provides new evidence that portal vein anatomy does not influence the distribution of liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

## Key findings

- Portal vein anatomical variations did not affect the unilateral or bilateral distribution of CRLM.
- No correlations were found between the number of CRLM and portal vein branch diameter or angulation.
- The distribution of CRLM was independent of primary tumor localization.

## Abstract

Other than location of the primary colorectal cancer (CRC), a few factors are known to influence the intrahepatic distribution of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM). We aimed to assess whether the anatomy of the portal vein (PV) could influence the intrahepatic distribution of CRLM.

Patients with CRLM diagnosed between January 2018 and December 2022 at two tertiary centers were included and imaging was reviewed by two radiologists independently. Intra-operator concordance was assessed according to the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The influence of the diameter, angulation of the PV branches and their variations on the number and distribution of CRLM were compared using Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, Pearson's Chi-square and Spearman's correlation tests.

Two hundred patients were included. ICC was high (> 0.90, P < 0.001). Intrahepatic CRLM distribution was right-liver, left-liver unilateral and bilateral in 66 (33%), 24 (12%) and 110 patients (55%), respectively. Median number of CRLM was 3 (1–7). Type 1, 2 and 3 portal vein variations were observed in 156 (78%), 19 (9.5%) and 25 (12%) patients, respectively. CRLM unilateral or bilateral distribution was not influenced by PV anatomical variations (P = 0.13), diameter of the right (P = 0.90) or left (P = 0.50) PV branches, angulation of the right (P = 0.20) or left (P = 0.80) PV branches and was independent from primary tumor localisation (P = 0.60). No correlations were found between CRLM number and diameter (R: 0.093, P = 0.10) or angulation of the PV branches (R: 0.012, P = 0.83).

PV anatomy does not seem to influence the distribution and number of CRLM.