Literature DB >> 18165883

Comparison between the minimum margin defined on preoperative imaging and the final surgical margin after hepatectomy for cancer: how to manage it?

D Elias1, S Bonnet, C Honoré, N Kohneh-Shahri, G Tomasic, N Lassau, C Dromain, D Goere.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The liver surgeon's decision to operate is based on imaging studies. However, no clear practical guidelines are available enabling surgeons to safely predict tumor-free margins after a partial hepatectomy. The aim of this retrospective study is to provide surgeons with simple and easily applicable practical guidelines.
METHODS: We retrospectively stringently selected 42 anatomical right or left hepatectomies whose main characteristic was to pass along the median hepatic vein, which was preserved. This vein is an easily visualized anatomical landmark on preoperative imaging and is never transgressed by the surgeon. We compared the minimum distance between the tumor and this vein measured on preoperative imaging, and the minimum tumor-free excision margin measured on the specimen by the pathologist.
RESULTS: The median tumor-free excision margin was 5 mm at pathological analysis, significantly different (P < .0001) from the tumor-free margin measured on preoperative imaging (15 mm). The mean difference between these two measurements was 10 +/- 4 mm (median, 9 mm). This difference was partly the result of the transection and partly the result of technical deviations in relation to the ideal resection line.
CONCLUSIONS: The liver surgeon must consider that roughly a 5 to 8 mm tumor-free margin will disappear during hepatectomy when comparing measurements on the basis of preoperative imaging versus tumor-free specimen margins. If the histologically assessed minimum 2-mm tumor-free margin is added, the surgeon must plan to have a 7 to 10 mm tumor-free margin on preoperative imaging. However, few technical solutions exist that would enable the surgeon to increase the safety margin in borderline cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18165883     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-007-9697-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  5 in total

1.  Comparison of liver parenchymal ablation and tissue necrosis in a cadaveric bovine model using the Harmonic Scalpel, the LigaSure, the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator and the Aquamantys devices.

Authors:  John S Hammond; William Muirhead; Abed M Zaitoun; Iain C Cameron; Dileep N Lobo
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2012-08-26       Impact factor: 3.647

2.  Is resection of colorectal liver metastases after a second-line chemotherapy regimen justified?

Authors:  Antoine Brouquet; Michael J Overman; Scott Kopetz; Dipen M Maru; Evelyne M Loyer; Andreas Andreou; Amanda Cooper; Steven A Curley; Christopher R Garrett; Eddie K Abdalla; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Negative surgical margin improved long-term survival of colorectal cancer liver metastases after hepatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Yi Sun; Lei Zhang; Bao-Cai Xing
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Influence of resection margin on survival in hepatic resections for colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  Dries Vandeweyer; Eu Ling Neo; John W C Chen; Guy J Maddern; Thomas G Wilson; Robert T A Padbury
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.647

5.  Surgical treatment of neuroendocrine liver metastases.

Authors:  Ser Yee Lee; Peng Chung Cheow; Jin Yao Teo; London L P J Ooi
Journal:  Int J Hepatol       Date:  2012-01-26
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.