Literature DB >> 25003288

A circumferential resection margin of 1 mm is a negative prognostic factor in rectal cancer patients with and without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Jong Seob Park1, Jung Wook Huh, Yoon Ah Park, Yong Beom Cho, Seong Hyeon Yun, Hee Cheol Kim, Woo Yong Lee, Ho-Kyung Chun.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate about the appropriate criterion for defining a positive circumferential resection margin after radical surgery for rectal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to determine the importance of the extent of the circumferential resection margin with regard to outcomes in patients with rectal cancer who underwent total mesorectal excision with and without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: We reviewed the medical charts of 780 patients with rectal cancer who underwent radical surgery from 2004 to 2009. There were 599 patients (76.8%) who did not receive neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 181 patients (23.2%) who did. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The relationship between the extent of the circumferential resection margin (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 mm) and recurrence and survival was assessed.
RESULTS: Among circumferential resection margins ≤0.5, ≤1.0, ≤2.0, and ≤3.0 mm, the HR was highest and disease-free survival was longest for a circumferential resection margin ≤1 mm in both the chemoradiotherapy and nonchemoradiotherapy groups. A circumferential resection margin ≤1 mm, lymphatic invasion, histology, pathologic T category, pathologic N category, preoperative CEA, and adjuvant chemotherapy were independent predictors of disease-free survival in the nonchemoradiotherapy group. In the chemoradiotherapy group, a circumferential resection margin ≤1 mm and histology were independent predictors of disease-free survival. Multivariate analysis revealed that a circumferential resection margin ≤1 mm was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in both of the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-institution, retrospective study.
CONCLUSIONS: A circumferential resection margin of ≤1 mm had a strong association with disease-free survival compared with circumferential resection margins ≤0.5, ≤2.0, and ≤3 mm. A circumferential resection margin ≤1 mm was an independent predictor of a poor outcome in both the nonchemoradiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25003288     DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000171

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


  23 in total

1.  The impact of surgical quality on prognosis in patients undergoing rectal carcinoma surgery after preoperative chemoradiation.

Authors:  Marcus Kiehlmann; Klaus Weber; Jonas Göhl; Rainer Fietkau; Abbas Agaimy; Werner Hohenberger; Susanne Merkel
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-10-24       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Outcomes of ultra-low anterior resection combined with or without intersphincteric resection in lower rectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Jin C Kim; Chang S Yu; Seok-B Lim; Chan W Kim; In J Park; Yong S Yoon
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-07-05       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 3.  [R1 resection of esophageal carcinoma].

Authors:  I Gockel; C Wittekind
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  Outcome one year after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery: a consecutive cohort study.

Authors:  Sanne Harsløf; Anders Stouge; Niels Thomassen; Sissel Ravn; Søren Laurberg; Lene Hjerrild Iversen
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-08-13       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Does the depth of mesorectal invasion have prognostic significance in patients with ypT3 lower rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy?

Authors:  Atsushi Ogura; Takashi Akiyoshi; Noriko Yamamoto; Hiroshi Kawachi; Yuichi Ishikawa; Hisashi Noma; Masato Nagino; Yosuke Fukunaga; Masashi Ueno
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-11-26       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Patterns of failure in rectal cancer with positive circumferential resection margin after surgery following preoperative chemoradiation: a propensity score matching analysis.

Authors:  Youngkyong Kim; Dae Yong Kim; Tae Hyun Kim; Sun Young Kim; Ji Yeon Baek; Min Ju Kim; Hee Jin Chang; Yongjun Cha; Sung Chan Park; Jae Hwan Oh
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Oncological and anorectal functional outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection in lower rectal cancer, particularly the extent of sphincter resection and sphincter saving.

Authors:  Jin Cheon Kim; Jong Lyul Lee; Joon Woo Bong; Ji Hyun Seo; Chan Wook Kim; Seong Ho Park; Jihoon Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  MRI for Rectal Cancer: Staging, mrCRM, EMVI, Lymph Node Staging and Post-Treatment Response.

Authors:  David D B Bates; Maria El Homsi; Kevin J Chang; Neeraj Lalwani; Natally Horvat; Shannon P Sheedy
Journal:  Clin Colorectal Cancer       Date:  2021-11-14       Impact factor: 4.481

9.  Real-time Tracking and Classification of Tumor and Nontumor Tissue in Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers Using Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy for Resection Margin Assessment.

Authors:  Scarlet Nazarian; Ioannis Gkouzionis; Michal Kawka; Marta Jamroziak; Josephine Lloyd; Ara Darzi; Nisha Patel; Daniel S Elson; Christopher J Peters
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2022-09-07       Impact factor: 16.681

10.  A comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery in rectal cancer: a propensity score analysis.

Authors:  Dae Hee Pyo; Jung Wook Huh; Yoon Ah Park; Yong Beom Cho; Seong Hyeon Yun; Hee Cheol Kim; Woo Yong Lee; Ho-Kyung Chun
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.