+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Circumferential margin involvement after total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer: are all R1 resections equal?



Circumferential margin involvement after total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer: are all R1 resections equal?



Colorectal Disease 19(11): O377-O385



Our aim was to assess the prognostic influence of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) exact value after total mesorectal excision for mid or low rectal cancer. All patients (n = 321) who underwent total mesorectal excision from 2005 to 2013 were identified from a prospective database, including 49 (15%) who presented with a CRM ≤ 1 mm. Four groups were defined: group 1, CRM = 0 mm (n = 21); group 2, 0 < CRM ≤ 0.4 mm (n = 13); group 3, 0.4 < CRM ≤ 1 mm (n = 15); group 4, CRM > 1 mm (n = 272). After a mean follow-up of 42 ± 26 months, locoregional recurrence rates were 8/21 (38%) in group 1, 3/13 (23%) in group 2, 0/12 (0%) in group 3 and 26/272 (10%) in group 4 (P < 0.001), leading to significantly impaired 3-year locoregional recurrence-free survival in group 1 (57% ± 13%) and group 2 (56% ± 15%) compared to group 3 (85% ± 10%, vs group 1, P = 0.021, vs group 2, P = 0.049) and to group 4 (89% ± 2%, vs group 1, P < 0.001, vs group 2, P < 0.001). In multivariate Cox analysis, a CRM ≤ 0.4 mm was identified as an independent factor impairing both locoregional recurrence-free survival (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.53-6.46; P = 0.002) and disease-free survival (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.28-3.63; P = 0.004). Our study suggests that the prognosis after mid or low rectal cancer surgery was worse with a CRM ≤ 0.4 mm. The prognosis was similar in patients with a CRM > 0.4 mm or ≤ 1 mm and patients with an R0 resection.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 059502772

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 28941054

DOI: 10.1111/codi.13895


Related references

Prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery 89(3): 327-334, 2002

The circumferential margin in rectal cancer: Recommendations based on the Dutch total mesorectal excision study. European Journal of Cancer 38(7): 973-976, 2002

Circumferential margin involvement after mesorectal excision of rectal cancer with curative intent. Predictor of survival but not local recurrence?. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 41(8): 979-983, 1998

Prognostic significance of circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology 14(2): 462-469, 2006

Circumferential margin plays an independent impact on the outcome of rectal cancer patients receiving curative total mesorectal excision. American Journal of Surgery 206(5): 771-777, 2014

Quality of total mesorectal excision and depth of circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer: a matched comparison of the first 20 robotic cases. Colorectal Disease 16(8): 603-609, 2015

Role of total mesorectal excision and of circumferential resection margin in local recurrence and survival of patients with rectal carcinoma. Digestive Diseases 25(1): 51-55, 2007

Higher risk of incomplete mesorectal excision and positive circumferential margin in low rectal cancer regardless of surgical technique. Wideochirurgia i Inne Techniki Maloinwazyjne 9(4): 569-577, 2015

Mesorectal spread and circumferential margin involvement of rectal cancer studied on large slice. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban 35(5): 723-726, 2004

Rectal cancer within 10 cm. Comparison of the radicality of laparoscopic and open surgical techniques with regard to the circumferential resection margin and the completeness of mesorectal excision. Rozhledy V Chirurgii 92(6): 312-319, 2015

Comparison of circumferential margin involvement between restorative and nonrestorative resections for rectal cancer. Colorectal Disease 7(4): 369-374, 2005

The effect of circumferential tumor location in clinical outcomes of rectal cancer patients treated with total mesorectal excision. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 48(12): 2249-2257, 2006

The circumferential resection margins status: A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 42(6): 808-812, 2016

Comparative Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Treatment Prior to Total Mesorectal Excision and Total Mesorectal Excision Alone in Selected Stage II/III Low and Mid Rectal Cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology 23(1): 106-113, 2016

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. Bmc Cancer 16: 380-380, 2017