BACKGROUND: Traditionally a 1-cm margin has been accepted as the gold standard for resection of colorectal liver metastases. Evidence is emerging that a lesser margin may provide equally acceptable outcomes, but a critical margin, below which recurrence is higher and survival poorer, has not been universally agreed. In a recent publication, we reported peri-operative morbidity and clear margin as the two independent prognostic factors. The aim of the current study was to further analyse the effect of the width of the surgical margin on patient survival to determine whether a margin of 1 mm is adequate. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-one consecutive primary liver resections for colorectal metastases were analysed from 1992 to 2007. The resection margins were assessed by microscopic examination of paraffin sections. The initial analysis was performed on five groups according to the resection margins: involved margin, 0-1 mm, >1-<4 mm, 4-<10 mm and > or = 10 mm. Subsequent analysis was based on two groups: margin <1 mm and >1 mm. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the overall 5-year patient and disease-free survival were 38% and 22%, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient- or disease-free survival between the three groups with resection margins >1 mm. When a comparison was made between patients with resection margins < or = 1 mm and patients with resection margins >1 mm, there was a significant 5-year patient survival difference of 25% versus 43% (P < 0.04). However, the disease-free survival difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients, we have demonstrated that a resection margin of greater than 1 mm is associated with significantly improved 5-year overall survival, compared with involved margins or margins less than or equal to 1 mm. The possible beneficial effect of greater margins beyond 1 mm could not be demonstrated.
BACKGROUND: Traditionally a 1-cm margin has been accepted as the gold standard for resection of colorectal liver metastases. Evidence is emerging that a lesser margin may provide equally acceptable outcomes, but a critical margin, below which recurrence is higher and survival poorer, has not been universally agreed. In a recent publication, we reported peri-operative morbidity and clear margin as the two independent prognostic factors. The aim of the current study was to further analyse the effect of the width of the surgical margin on patient survival to determine whether a margin of 1 mm is adequate. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-one consecutive primary liver resections for colorectal metastases were analysed from 1992 to 2007. The resection margins were assessed by microscopic examination of paraffin sections. The initial analysis was performed on five groups according to the resection margins: involved margin, 0-1 mm, >1-<4 mm, 4-<10 mm and > or = 10 mm. Subsequent analysis was based on two groups: margin <1 mm and >1 mm. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the overall 5-year patient and disease-free survival were 38% and 22%, respectively. There was no significant difference in patient- or disease-free survival between the three groups with resection margins >1 mm. When a comparison was made between patients with resection margins < or = 1 mm and patients with resection margins >1 mm, there was a significant 5-year patient survival difference of 25% versus 43% (P < 0.04). However, the disease-free survival difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients, we have demonstrated that a resection margin of greater than 1 mm is associated with significantly improved 5-year overall survival, compared with involved margins or margins less than or equal to 1 mm. The possible beneficial effect of greater margins beyond 1 mm could not be demonstrated.
Authors: Chandrakanth Are; Mithat Gonen; Kathleen Zazzali; Ronald P Dematteo; William R Jarnagin; Yuman Fong; Leslie H Blumgart; Michael D'Angelica Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Timothy M Pawlik; Charles R Scoggins; Daria Zorzi; Eddie K Abdalla; Axel Andres; Cathy Eng; Steven A Curley; Evelyne M Loyer; Andrea Muratore; Gilles Mentha; Lorenzo Capussotti; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J Figueras; F Burdio; E Ramos; J Torras; L Llado; S Lopez-Ben; A Codina-Barreras; S Mojal Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-04-13 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: C J Wray; A M Lowy; J B Mathews; S Park; K A Choe; D W Hanto; L E James; D A Soldano; S A Ahmad Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2005-03-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: D Elias; S Bonnet; C Honoré; N Kohneh-Shahri; G Tomasic; N Lassau; C Dromain; D Goere Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-12-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Robbert J de Haas; Dennis A Wicherts; Eduardo Flores; Daniel Azoulay; Denis Castaing; René Adam Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: R L Eefsen; P B Vermeulen; I J Christensen; O D Laerum; M B Mogensen; H C Rolff; G G Van den Eynden; G Høyer-Hansen; K Osterlind; B Vainer; M Illemann Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Matthew G Wiggans; Golnaz Shahtahmassebi; Paul Malcolm; Frances McCormick; Somaiah Aroori; Matthew J Bowles; David A Stell Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-12-27 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Bruno Christ; Uta Dahmen; Karl-Heinz Herrmann; Matthias König; Jürgen R Reichenbach; Tim Ricken; Jana Schleicher; Lars Ole Schwen; Sebastian Vlaic; Navina Waschinsky Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 4.566