AIM: To determine the distal intramural spread (DIS) margin of rectal cancer. METHODS: Sixty-one p53-positive specimens of rectal cancer were used. After conventional hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, the DIS margin of rectal cancer in large specimens was examined by immunohistochemistry. The patients were divided into A, B, C, and D groups. After a long-term follow-up, the survival curves of the four groups were estimated using the life table. RESULTS: Fifty-one of the sixty-one cases (83.6%) had DIS. The extent of DIS ranged 0.11-3.5 cm; meanwhile the mean of DIS measured by H&E staining was 0.13 cm. The significant difference was found between the means (t=5.622, P<0.0001). Only 1 of 51 patients had DIS greater than 3 cm. The DIS was less than 1.0 cm in most rectal cancer patients. The long-term results indicated that the survival rate of the patients whose DIS was greater than 1.0 cm was lower than that of the patients whose DIS was less than 0.5 cm. CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer patients with DIS greater than 1.0 cm have poor prognosis.
AIM: To determine the distal intramural spread (DIS) margin of rectal cancer. METHODS: Sixty-one p53-positive specimens of rectal cancer were used. After conventional hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, the DIS margin of rectal cancer in large specimens was examined by immunohistochemistry. The patients were divided into A, B, C, and D groups. After a long-term follow-up, the survival curves of the four groups were estimated using the life table. RESULTS: Fifty-one of the sixty-one cases (83.6%) had DIS. The extent of DIS ranged 0.11-3.5 cm; meanwhile the mean of DIS measured by H&E staining was 0.13 cm. The significant difference was found between the means (t=5.622, P<0.0001). Only 1 of 51 patients had DIS greater than 3 cm. The DIS was less than 1.0 cm in most rectal cancerpatients. The long-term results indicated that the survival rate of the patients whose DIS was greater than 1.0 cm was lower than that of the patients whose DIS was less than 0.5 cm. CONCLUSION:Rectal cancerpatients with DIS greater than 1.0 cm have poor prognosis.
Authors: S J Baker; A C Preisinger; J M Jessup; C Paraskeva; S Markowitz; J K Willson; S Hamilton; B Vogelstein Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1990-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: J A Brennan; L Mao; R H Hruban; J O Boyle; Y J Eby; W M Koch; S N Goodman; D Sidransky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-02-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Harvey G Moore; Elyn Riedel; Bruce D Minsky; Leonard Saltz; Philip Paty; Douglas Wong; Alfred M Cohen; Jose G Guillem Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: N Hayashi; I Ito; A Yanagisawa; Y Kato; S Nakamori; S Imaoka; H Watanabe; M Ogawa; Y Nakamura Journal: Lancet Date: 1995-05-20 Impact factor: 79.321