|*DISCLAIMER: This page is an unmoderated forum, and the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Patients are advised to consult their personal physicians before making any medical decisions. |
Once there are mets to the liver the cancer has spread and it is very hard to get rid of all of the cancer cells. That is why they do radiation after a whipple as a precautionary measure.
The Whipple is a Very Dangerous and VERY Dehabilitating surgery. A large number of people don't even survive the surgery much less the after affects. The recovery time is long and hard. If you have mets to the liver your body is just not physically able to handle a lot of this type of stress. They have weigh the benefits against the risks.
Removal of the pancreas is not a surgery you just want to do for pallative care it does not increase quality of life for most people until long after the surgery is complete and if you have secondary mets it is not really an option. The tumor feeds off of everything.
About removing liver mets. The liver is a very vascular organ and any time you disturb it you run the risk of infection and bleeding. The risk to the patient for removal of tumors is not worth it. They have to weigh both sides risk of death / benefits of removing the tumor. Usually it is not worth it.
For Liver transplants( or for that matter any transplant that I know of )the person has to be cancer free for at least 5 years. This is because the waiting list for organs is so long and the donor list so short. Finding a match can take years.
I hope this answers your questions. I don't mean to sound blunt but these are the reasons that I know of.
Reply to this message | Return to Main Message List