Literature DB >> 22776435

Factors influencing circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer.

A Hiranyakas1, G da Silva, S D Wexner, Y-H Ho, D Allende, M Berho.   

Abstract

AIM: Abdominoperineal excision (APR) has been associated with higher circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and local recurrence rates than extralevator APR for low rectal cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the CRMs in APR and low anterior resection (LAR) specimens and to identify factors influencing CRM involvement.
METHOD: All pathological specimens from consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent curative resection at the Cleveland Clinic Florida, from January 2000 to July 2010, were reviewed by two pathologists. Demographics, tumour characteristics, operative data, postoperative pathology and Dworak's tumour regression grade were compared between specimens with positive and negative CRMs.
RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty-four patients underwent curative APR (n = 65) or LAR (n = 69). Mean tumour size was 3.6 cm, and mean distance from the dentate line was 5.4 cm. Nine (6.8%) patients had a positive CRM (n = 6 APR, n = 3 LAR), which was associated with tumour size > 5.9 cm (P = 0.002), a distance of ≤ 2.6 cm from the dentate line (P = 0.013), microvascular invasion (P = 0.009), perineural invasion (P < 0.001), number of positive lymph nodes (P = 0.046) and incomplete total mesorectal excision (TME) (P < 0.001). APR specimens were three times more likely than LAR specimens to have an incomplete mesorectum (9.8%vs 2.9%, P = 0.322).
CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with a positive CRM were tumour size > 5.9 cm, a distance of ≤ 2.6 cm from the dentate line, incomplete TME, number of positive nodes and microvascular and perineural invasion. The incidence of a positive CRM was not significantly different between LAR and APR (n = 3 LAR and n = 6 APR).
© 2012 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2012 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22776435     DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03179.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 1462-8910            Impact factor:   3.788


  15 in total

1.  Oncological superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal resection over conventional abdominoperineal resection: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ao Huang; Hongchao Zhao; Tianlong Ling; Yingjun Quan; Minhua Zheng; Bo Feng
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Predictors of circumferential resection margin involvement in surgically resected rectal cancer: A retrospective review of 23,464 patients in the US National Cancer Database.

Authors:  Eisar Al-Sukhni; Kristopher Attwood; Emmanuel Gabriel; Steven J Nurkin
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2016-02-21       Impact factor: 6.071

3.  High Rate of Positive Circumferential Resection Margins Following Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Call to Action.

Authors:  Aaron S Rickles; David W Dietz; George J Chang; Steven D Wexner; Mariana E Berho; Feza H Remzi; Frederick L Greene; James W Fleshman; Maher A Abbas; Walter Peters; Katia Noyes; John R T Monson; Fergal J Fleming
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Combined NOTES total mesorectal excision and single-incision laparoscopy principles for conservative proctectomy: a single-centre study.

Authors:  H Meillat; C de Chaisemartin; F Poizat; E Bories; R Fara; J R Delpero; B Lelong
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 5.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Oncological Outcomes.

Authors:  Jessica Lam; Michael S Tam; R Luke Retting; Elisabeth C McLemore
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2021-12-14

Review 6.  Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures.

Authors:  Julia-Kristin Baukloh; Daniel Perez; Matthias Reeh; Matthias Biebl; Jakob R Izbicki; Johann Pratschke; Felix Aigner
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2018-02-21

7.  Short-term Outcomes of an Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection in the Prone Position Compared With a Conventional Abdominoperineal Resection for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: The Early Experience at a Single Institution.

Authors:  Seungwan Park; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Nam Kyu Kim
Journal:  Ann Coloproctol       Date:  2016-02-29

8.  Expression of guanylyl cyclase C in tissue samples and the circulation of rectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Yong Liu; Guoping Cheng; Jun Qian; HaiXing Ju; YuPing Zhu; Meucci Stefano; Ulrich Keilholz; DeChuan Li
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-06-13

9.  Sparing Sphincters and Laparoscopic Resection Improve Survival by Optimizing the Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Metin Keskin; Adem Bayraktar; Emre Sivirikoz; Gülcin Yegen; Bora Karip; Esra Saglam; Mehmet Türker Bulut; Emre Balik
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  Simple instruments facilitating achievement of transanal total mesorectal excision in male patients.

Authors:  Chang Xu; Hua-Yu Song; Shao-Liang Han; Shi-Chang Ni; Hu-Xiang Zhang; Chun-Gen Xing
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.