Literature DB >> 21566512

How to define a positive circumferential resection margin in T3 adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.

Roy J J Verhage1, Herman J A Zandvoort, Fiebo J W ten Kate, Richard van Hillegersberg.   

Abstract

A positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) is associated with poor survival after esophagectomy for cancer. The Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) defines a CRM when tumor is found <1 mm of the lateral margin whereas the College of American Pathologists (CAP) defines CRM when tumor cells are located at the lateral margin. This study evaluates the clinical prognostic significance of CRM on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients who underwent esophagectomy for T3 esophageal adenocarcinoma. Analysis included 132 patients. CRM was found in 26 cases (19.7%) corresponding to CAP criteria versus 89 cases (67.4%) corresponding to RCP criteria. Median OS using RCP criteria was 16.4 (95%CI, 8.5-24.2) months for CRM patients versus 21.0 (95%CI 16.3-25.6) months in CRM patients (P=0.144). With CAP criteria, median OS in CRM and CRM patients was 9.4 (95%CI, 7.6-11.2) months versus 21.6 (95%CI, 18.9-24.3) months, respectively (P=0.000). Median DFS using RCP criteria was 18.0 (95%CI, 11.5-24.6) months for CRM patients versus 11.0 (95%CI, 8.1-14.0) months for CRM patients (P=0.257). Applying the CAP criteria, median DFS in CRM and CRM patients was 16.3 (95%CI, 10.6-22.0) months versus 7.0 (95%CI, 6.3-7.8) months, respectively (P=0.000). Effects of a CRM according to CAP criteria remained significant after multivariate testing [OS: hazard ratio (HR), 2.43; 95%CI, 1.52-3.90; DFS: HR, 2.09; 95%CI, 1.32-3.30]. Only with the CAP criteria, CRM is an independent prognostic factor for survival and recurrence in patients with T3 adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The circumferential margin should only be considered positive (ie, R1) if the tumor is found at the inked lateral margin of resection in accordance with the CAP criteria.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21566512     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31821a5692

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  17 in total

1.  [Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: diagnostic and surgical strategies].

Authors:  C J Bruns
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  Surgical treatments for esophageal cancers.

Authors:  William H Allum; Luigi Bonavina; Stephen D Cassivi; Miguel A Cuesta; Zhao Ming Dong; Valter Nilton Felix; Edgar Figueredo; Piers A C Gatenby; Leonie Haverkamp; Maksat A Ibraev; Mark J Krasna; René Lambert; Rupert Langer; Michael P N Lewis; Katie S Nason; Kevin Parry; Shaun R Preston; Jelle P Ruurda; Lara W Schaheen; Roger P Tatum; Igor N Turkin; Sylvia van der Horst; Donald L van der Peet; Peter C van der Sluis; Richard van Hillegersberg; Justin C R Wormald; Peter C Wu; Barbara M Zonderhuis
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 5.691

Review 3.  Positive circumferential resection margin in locally advanced esophageal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jie Wu; Yuqian Hu; Liwei Xu
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-02-25

4.  The emerging field of radiomics in esophageal cancer: current evidence and future potential.

Authors:  Peter S N van Rossum; Cai Xu; David V Fried; Lucas Goense; Laurence E Court; Steven H Lin
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.241

5.  Prognostic significance of circumferential resection margin involvement following oesophagectomy for cancer and the predictive role of endoluminal ultrasonography.

Authors:  T D Reid; D S Y Chan; S A Roberts; T D L Crosby; G T Williams; W G Lewis
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Cyclooxygenase isoenzyme-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor are associated with poor prognosis in esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  M J D Prins; R J J Verhage; F J W ten Kate; R van Hillegersberg
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Oncologic Long-Term Results of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Thoraco-Laparoscopic Esophagectomy with Two-Field Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  P C van der Sluis; J P Ruurda; R J J Verhage; S van der Horst; L Haverkamp; P D Siersema; I H M Borel Rinkes; F J W Ten Kate; R van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Waiting Time from Diagnosis to Treatment has no Impact on Survival in Patients with Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  E Visser; A G Leeftink; P S N van Rossum; S Siesling; R van Hillegersberg; J P Ruurda
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT trial).

Authors:  Pieter C van der Sluis; Jelle P Ruurda; Sylvia van der Horst; Roy J J Verhage; Marc G H Besselink; Margriet J D Prins; Leonie Haverkamp; Carlo Schippers; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Hans C A Joore; Fiebo Jw Ten Kate; Hendrik Koffijberg; Christiaan C Kroese; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Martijn P J K Lolkema; Onne Reerink; Marguerite E I Schipper; Elles Steenhagen; Frank P Vleggaar; Emile E Voest; Peter D Siersema; Richard van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Prognosis and Treatment After Diagnosis of Recurrent Esophageal Carcinoma Following Esophagectomy with Curative Intent.

Authors:  K Parry; E Visser; P S N van Rossum; N Haj Mohammad; J P Ruurda; R van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 5.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.