BACKGROUND: The relationship between the width of surgical margins and local and distant recurrence of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remain controversial. We analyzed the impact of surgical margins in laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for CRLM, using the parenchymal-sparing approach on overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). METHODS: From January 2005 to October 2012, 114 first LLR for CRLM were performed and retrospectively analyzed. The ultrasonic aspirator was used for parenchyma division. R1 margins were defined when the tissue width was <1 mm. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 30.9 ± 1.71 months, OS was 97.1-73.9-58.9% and the RFS 64.2-35.2-31% at 1-3-5 years, respectively. The major resection rate was 7%. The median margin width was 3 (0-40) mm, and R1 resection was recorded in 14 (12.3%) cases. Twenty-two patients (33.3%) with hepatic recurrence underwent a repeat hepatectomy. R1 margins were significantly related to lower RFS survival (p = 0.038) but did not affect OS. Multivariate analysis showed that lesions located in postero-superior segments (HR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.24-4.61, p = 0.009) as well as blood loss (HR = 3.2, 95% CI 1.23-7.99, p = 0.012) were independent risk factors for tumor recurrence. The carcinoembryonic antigen level >10 mcg/L affected OS (HR = 4.2 95% CI 2.02-16.9, p = 0.001), and the resection of more than two tumors was significantly associated with R1 margins (HR = 9.32, 95% CI 1.14-32.5, p = 0.037). DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing surgery of CRLM does not compromise the oncological outcome, allowing a higher percentage of repeat hepatectomy. R1 margins are a risk factor for tumor recurrence but not for overall survival. The presence of multiple lesions is the only independent risk factor of R1 margins and also the major disadvantage of this technique.
BACKGROUND: The relationship between the width of surgical margins and local and distant recurrence of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remain controversial. We analyzed the impact of surgical margins in laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for CRLM, using the parenchymal-sparing approach on overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). METHODS: From January 2005 to October 2012, 114 first LLR for CRLM were performed and retrospectively analyzed. The ultrasonic aspirator was used for parenchyma division. R1 margins were defined when the tissue width was <1 mm. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 30.9 ± 1.71 months, OS was 97.1-73.9-58.9% and the RFS 64.2-35.2-31% at 1-3-5 years, respectively. The major resection rate was 7%. The median margin width was 3 (0-40) mm, and R1 resection was recorded in 14 (12.3%) cases. Twenty-two patients (33.3%) with hepatic recurrence underwent a repeat hepatectomy. R1 margins were significantly related to lower RFS survival (p = 0.038) but did not affect OS. Multivariate analysis showed that lesions located in postero-superior segments (HR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.24-4.61, p = 0.009) as well as blood loss (HR = 3.2, 95% CI 1.23-7.99, p = 0.012) were independent risk factors for tumor recurrence. The carcinoembryonic antigen level >10 mcg/L affected OS (HR = 4.2 95% CI 2.02-16.9, p = 0.001), and the resection of more than two tumors was significantly associated with R1 margins (HR = 9.32, 95% CI 1.14-32.5, p = 0.037). DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing surgery of CRLM does not compromise the oncological outcome, allowing a higher percentage of repeat hepatectomy. R1 margins are a risk factor for tumor recurrence but not for overall survival. The presence of multiple lesions is the only independent risk factor of R1 margins and also the major disadvantage of this technique.
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: Andreas A Schnitzbauer; Sven A Lang; Holger Goessmann; Silvio Nadalin; Janine Baumgart; Stefan A Farkas; Stefan Fichtner-Feigl; Thomas Lorf; Armin Goralcyk; Rüdiger Hörbelt; Alexander Kroemer; Martin Loss; Petra Rümmele; Marcus N Scherer; Winfried Padberg; Alfred Königsrainer; Hauke Lang; Aiman Obed; Hans J Schlitt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-03 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: Dries Vandeweyer; Eu Ling Neo; John W C Chen; Guy J Maddern; Thomas G Wilson; Robert T A Padbury Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Zaed Z R Hamady; J Peter A Lodge; Fenella K Welsh; Giles J Toogood; Alan White; Timothy John; Myrddin Rees Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jennifer A Kalil; Jennifer Poirier; Bjoern Becker; Robert Van Dam; Xavier Keutgen; Erik Schadde Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.452