OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of surgical margin status on survival and site of recurrence in patients treated with hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. METHODS: Using a multicenter database, 557 patients who underwent hepatic resection for colorectal metastases were identified. Demographics, operative data, pathologic margin status, site of recurrence (margin, other intrahepatic site, extrahepatic), and long-term survival data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: On final pathologic analysis, margin status was positive in 45 patients, and negative by 1 to 4 mm in 129, 5 to 9 mm in 85, and > or =1 cm in 298. At a median follow-up of 29 months, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year actuarial survival rates were 97%, 74%, and 58%; median survival was 74 months. Tumor size > or =5 cm, >3 tumor nodules, and carcinoembryonic antigen level >200 ng/mL predicted poor survival (all P < 0.05). Median survival was 49 months in patients with positive margins and not yet reached in patients with negative margins (P = 0.01). After hepatic resection, 225 (40.4%) patients had recurrence: 21 at the surgical margin, 56 at another intrahepatic site, 82 at an extrahepatic site, and 66 at both intrahepatic and extrahepatic sites. Patients with negative margins of 1 to 4 mm, 5 to 9 mm, and > or =1 cm had similar overall recurrence rates (P > 0.05). Patients with positive margins were more likely to have surgical margin recurrence (P = 0.003). Adverse preoperative biologic factors including tumor number greater than 3 (P = 0.01) and a preoperative CEA level greater than 200 ng/mL (P = 0.04) were associated with an increased risk of positive surgical margin. CONCLUSIONS: A positive margin after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases is associated with adverse biologic factors and increased risk of surgical-margin recurrence. The width of a negative surgical margin does not affect survival, recurrence risk, or site of recurrence. A predicted margin of <1 cm after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases should not be used as an exclusion criterion for resection.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of surgical margin status on survival and site of recurrence in patients treated with hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. METHODS: Using a multicenter database, 557 patients who underwent hepatic resection for colorectal metastases were identified. Demographics, operative data, pathologic margin status, site of recurrence (margin, other intrahepatic site, extrahepatic), and long-term survival data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: On final pathologic analysis, margin status was positive in 45 patients, and negative by 1 to 4 mm in 129, 5 to 9 mm in 85, and > or =1 cm in 298. At a median follow-up of 29 months, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year actuarial survival rates were 97%, 74%, and 58%; median survival was 74 months. Tumor size > or =5 cm, >3 tumor nodules, and carcinoembryonic antigen level >200 ng/mL predicted poor survival (all P < 0.05). Median survival was 49 months in patients with positive margins and not yet reached in patients with negative margins (P = 0.01). After hepatic resection, 225 (40.4%) patients had recurrence: 21 at the surgical margin, 56 at another intrahepatic site, 82 at an extrahepatic site, and 66 at both intrahepatic and extrahepatic sites. Patients with negative margins of 1 to 4 mm, 5 to 9 mm, and > or =1 cm had similar overall recurrence rates (P > 0.05). Patients with positive margins were more likely to have surgical margin recurrence (P = 0.003). Adverse preoperative biologic factors including tumor number greater than 3 (P = 0.01) and a preoperative CEA level greater than 200 ng/mL (P = 0.04) were associated with an increased risk of positive surgical margin. CONCLUSIONS: A positive margin after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases is associated with adverse biologic factors and increased risk of surgical-margin recurrence. The width of a negative surgical margin does not affect survival, recurrence risk, or site of recurrence. A predicted margin of <1 cm after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases should not be used as an exclusion criterion for resection.
Authors: B Cady; R L Jenkins; G D Steele; W D Lewis; M D Stone; W V McDermott; J M Jessup; A Bothe; P Lalor; E J Lovett; P Lavin; D C Linehan Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michael A Choti; James V Sitzmann; Marcelo F Tiburi; Wuthi Sumetchotimetha; Ram Rangsin; Richard D Schulick; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo; John L Cameron Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Y Fong; A M Cohen; J G Fortner; W E Enker; A D Turnbull; D G Coit; A M Marrero; M Prasad; L H Blumgart; M F Brennan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jan Franko; Qian Shi; Charles D Goldman; Barbara A Pockaj; Garth D Nelson; Richard M Goldberg; Henry C Pitot; Axel Grothey; Steven R Alberts; Daniel J Sargent Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena N Petre; Mithat Gonen; Karen T Brown; Stephen B Solomon; Anne M Covey; William Alago; Lynn A Brody; Raymond H Thornton; Michael D'Angelica; Yuman Fong; Nancy E Kemeny Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 3.464