Wei Liu1, Yi Sun1, Lei Zhang1, Bao-Cai Xing2. 1. Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery Department I, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research, Ministry of Education, Peking University School of Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 52, Fu-Cheng-Lu Street, Beijing, 100142, People's Republic of China. 2. Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery Department I, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research, Ministry of Education, Peking University School of Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 52, Fu-Cheng-Lu Street, Beijing, 100142, People's Republic of China. xingbaocai88@sina.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The need to achieve a tumor-free margin of ≥1 mm (R0) for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) after hepatic resection has been questioned recently. This study conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether status of the surgical margin still influenced the long-term outcome of survival and recurrence rate. METHODS: Eligible trials that compared survival and recurrence rates of R0 versus the tumor-free margin <1 mm (R1) were identified from Embase, PubMed, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library since their inception to 1 March 2015. The study outcomes included long-term outcome of survival and recurrence rate. Hazard ratio (HR) with a 95 % confidence interval was used to measure the pooled effect according to a random-effects model or fixed-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity among the included studies. The heterogeneity among these trials was statistically evaluated using the χ(2) and I(2) tests. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias were also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies containing 6790 patients were included. The comparison between R1 and R0 revealed that a pooled HR for 5-year overall survival was 1.603 (95 % CI; 1.464-1.755; p = 0.000; I(2) = 31.2 %, p = 0.141). For patients received modern chemotherapy; a pooled HR of R1 resection for 5-year overall survival was 1.924 (95 % CI; 1.567-2.361, p = 0.000; I(2) = 20.5 %, p = 0.273). The pooled HR for 5-year OS of ≥1 cm in the included studies calculated using the random-effects model was 0.819 (95 % CI; 0.715-0.938, p = 0.004; I(2) = 0 %, p = 0.492). CONCLUSIONS: R1 resections decreased long-term survival, and modern chemotherapy did not alter an adverse outcome. Surgeons should attempt to obtain a 1-cm margin.
OBJECTIVE: The need to achieve a tumor-free margin of ≥1 mm (R0) for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) after hepatic resection has been questioned recently. This study conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether status of the surgical margin still influenced the long-term outcome of survival and recurrence rate. METHODS: Eligible trials that compared survival and recurrence rates of R0 versus the tumor-free margin <1 mm (R1) were identified from Embase, PubMed, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library since their inception to 1 March 2015. The study outcomes included long-term outcome of survival and recurrence rate. Hazard ratio (HR) with a 95 % confidence interval was used to measure the pooled effect according to a random-effects model or fixed-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity among the included studies. The heterogeneity among these trials was statistically evaluated using the χ(2) and I(2) tests. Sensitivity analyses and publication bias were also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies containing 6790 patients were included. The comparison between R1 and R0 revealed that a pooled HR for 5-year overall survival was 1.603 (95 % CI; 1.464-1.755; p = 0.000; I(2) = 31.2 %, p = 0.141). For patients received modern chemotherapy; a pooled HR of R1 resection for 5-year overall survival was 1.924 (95 % CI; 1.567-2.361, p = 0.000; I(2) = 20.5 %, p = 0.273). The pooled HR for 5-year OS of ≥1 cm in the included studies calculated using the random-effects model was 0.819 (95 % CI; 0.715-0.938, p = 0.004; I(2) = 0 %, p = 0.492). CONCLUSIONS: R1 resections decreased long-term survival, and modern chemotherapy did not alter an adverse outcome. Surgeons should attempt to obtain a 1-cm margin.
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: Michael D'Angelica; Peter Kornprat; Mithat Gonen; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; Leslie H Blumgart; William R Jarnagin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sanjay Pandanaboyana; Alan White; Samir Pathak; Ernest L Hidalgo; Giles Toogood; J P Lodge; K R Prasad Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-08-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S K P John; S M Robinson; S Rehman; B Harrison; A Vallance; J J French; B C Jaques; R M Charnley; D M Manas; S A White Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2013-08-21 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Toshifumi Wakai; Yoshio Shirai; Jun Sakata; Vladimir A Valera; Pavel V Korita; Kouhei Akazawa; Yoichi Ajioka; Katsuyoshi Hatakeyama Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Cynthia L Miller; Martin S Taylor; Motaz Qadan; Vikram Deshpande; Steven Worthington; Robert Smalley; Chey Collura; David P Ryan; Jill N Allen; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Jeffrey W Clark; Janet E Murphy; Aparna R Parikh; David Berger; Kenneth K Tanabe; Keith D Lillemoe; Cristina R Ferrone Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Emilio De Raffele; Mariateresa Mirarchi; Dajana Cuicchi; Ferdinando Lecce; Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Bruno Cola; Francesco Minni Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2018-10-15