Literature DB >> 19966604

The influence of circumferential resection margins on long-term outcomes following rectal cancer surgery.

Henry S Tilney1, Shahnawaz Rasheed, John M Northover, Paris P Tekkis.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Circumferential resection margin involvement after rectal cancer surgery is associated with local recurrence and decreased survival, but definitions of "safe" margins vary. This study assessed the influence of various circumferential margins on long-term outcome from rectal cancer surgery.
METHODS: Data were extracted from a rectal cancer database of patients undergoing rectal resection at a tertiary referral center between 1971 and 1996. The influence of circumferential margins on five-year local recurrence and cancer-specific survival were assessed using Cox regression.
RESULTS: Circumferential margin measurements were available from 435 patients (median follow-up, 70.4 months). Cancer-specific survival at five years was 80.8%, 69.2%, 59.2%, and 34.1% for tumors with a circumferential resection margin of >10 mm, 3-10 mm, 2 mm, and < or =1mm, respectively (P < 0.001). Local recurrence at five years was 9.0%, 14.7%, and 25.8% for margins >10 mm, 2-10 mm, and < or =1 mm, respectively (P = 0.001). Independent predictors of cancer-specific mortality were circumferential margins of < or =1 mm vs. >10 mm (odds ratio = 3.38, P = 0.014) or 2 mm (odds ratio = 2.24, P = 0.029), Dukes Stage (C2 vs. A: odds ratio = 15.18, P < 0.001), and vascular invasion (present vs. absent: odds ratio = 1.51, P = 0.033). Local recurrence was predicted by a margin of < or =1 mm (odds ratio = 2.29, P = 0.041), gender (female vs. male: odds ratio = 0.25, P = 0.002), Dukes Stage (C2 vs. A: odds ratio = 28.89, P = 0.003), and vascular invasion (extramural vs. none: odds ratio = 2.04, P = 0.024).
CONCLUSION: Circumferential margins < or =2 mm are associated with significantly reduced cancer-specific survival, and margins < or =1 mm with increased local recurrence, when other factors are accounted for, challenging the assumption that a circumferential resection margin of < or =1 mm is safe.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19966604     DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181b54fbd

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  21 in total

1.  Dual-port laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using the intended stoma site as the multichannel port.

Authors:  Takahisa Ishikawa; Shigenori Homma; Susumu Shibasaki; Tadashi Yoshida; Nozomi Minagawa; Hideki Kawamura; Norihiko Takahashi; Akinobu Taketomi
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 2.549

2.  Prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum with porcine collagen perineal reconstruction (Permacol™): high primary perineal wound healing rates.

Authors:  R L Harries; A Luhmann; D A Harris; J A Shami; B N Appleton
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 3.  Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies.

Authors:  Binghong Xiong; Li Ma; Wei Huang; Qikang Zhao; Yong Cheng; Jingshan Liu
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Pathology for the HPB Surgeon.

Authors:  Chandralekha Tampi
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 0.656

5.  Results of intraoperative electron beam radiotherapy containing multimodality treatment for locally unresectable T4 rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of the Mayo Clinic Rochester and Catharina Hospital Eindhoven.

Authors:  Fabian A Holman; Michael G Haddock; Leonard L Gunderson; Miranda Kusters; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Hetty A van den Berg; Heidi Nelson; Harm J T Rutten
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2016-12

6.  Long-term surveillance of locally advanced rectal cancer patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and aggressive surgical treatment of recurrent disease: a consecutive single-centre experience.

Authors:  Matthias Zitt; Alexander DeVries; Josef Thaler; Reinhold Kafka-Ritsch; Wolfgang Eisterer; Peter Lukas; Dietmar Öfner
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Comparison of the clinical results of abdominoperanal intersphincteric resection and abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer.

Authors:  Shunsuke Tsukamoto; Yukihide Kanemitsu; Dai Shida; Hiroki Ochiai; Junichi Mazaki
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Outcome for stage II and III rectal and colon cancer equally good after treatment improvement over three decades.

Authors:  Joern Fischer; Fischer Joern; Gunter Hellmich; Hellmich Gunter; Thomas Jackisch; Jackisch Thomas; Erik Puffer; Puffer Erik; Jörg Zimmer; Zimmer Jörg; Dorothea Bleyl; Bleyl Dorothea; Thomas Kittner; Kittner Thomas; Helmut Witzigmann; Witzigmann Helmut; Sigmar Stelzner; Stelzner Sigmar
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  What is the significance of the circumferential margin in locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy?

Authors:  Atthaphorn Trakarnsanga; Mithat Gonen; Jinru Shia; Karyn A Goodman; Garrett M Nash; Larissa K Temple; José G Guillem; Philip B Paty; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Martin R Weiser
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 10.  Distal dissection in total mesorectal excision, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy and lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jin-ichi Hida; Kiyotaka Okuno; Tadao Tokoro
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2013-12-22       Impact factor: 2.549

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.