Chien-Hung Chiu1, Yin-Kai Chao2, Yu-Wen Wen3, Hsien-Kun Chang4, Chen-Kan Tseng5, Yun-Hen Liu1. 1. Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, 5 Fu-Hsing Street, Kweishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 2. Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, 5 Fu-Hsing Street, Kweishan, Taoyuan, Taiwan. chaoyk@cgmh.org.tw. 3. Clinical Informatics and Medical Statistics Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 4. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophageal cancer has the propensity to spread in a longitudinal manner (either proximally or distally), potentially resulting in the unexpected presence of microscopic disease at grossly tumor-free margins. The clinical significance of this phenomenon in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence, predictors, and prognostic impact of microscopically positive proximal resection margins (PPRMs) in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who received CRT. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2014, we identified 332 ESCC patients who underwent complete gross resection (R0/R1) following CRT. Patients were divided into two groups according to the status of the proximal resection margins on microscopic examination [negative proximal resection margins (NPRMs) vs PPRMs]. The occurrence of anastomotic leakage (AL) and anastomotic recurrence (AR) served as outcome measures. RESULTS: Sixteen (4.8 %) patients had PPRM. The presence of PPRM was not associated with AL but was a strong predictor of AR (PPRM vs NPRM, 23.1 vs 7 %, respectively, P = 0.033). Multivariate analysis identified a resection margin length <3.5 cm [odds ratio (OR) 4.473, P = 0.022] and salvage resection (OR 3.171, P = 0.045) as independent predictors of PPRM. The estimated PPRM rates were 16.7, 6.3, and 1.3 % for patients with 2, 1, and 0 predictors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PPRM occurred in 4.8 % of ESCC patients following CRT and was associated with AR. An intraoperative frozen section margin analysis should be performed in patients carrying risk factors to avoid unexpected PPRM.
BACKGROUND:Esophageal cancer has the propensity to spread in a longitudinal manner (either proximally or distally), potentially resulting in the unexpected presence of microscopic disease at grossly tumor-free margins. The clinical significance of this phenomenon in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence, predictors, and prognostic impact of microscopically positive proximal resection margins (PPRMs) in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who received CRT. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2014, we identified 332 ESCC patients who underwent complete gross resection (R0/R1) following CRT. Patients were divided into two groups according to the status of the proximal resection margins on microscopic examination [negative proximal resection margins (NPRMs) vs PPRMs]. The occurrence of anastomotic leakage (AL) and anastomotic recurrence (AR) served as outcome measures. RESULTS: Sixteen (4.8 %) patients had PPRM. The presence of PPRM was not associated with AL but was a strong predictor of AR (PPRM vs NPRM, 23.1 vs 7 %, respectively, P = 0.033). Multivariate analysis identified a resection margin length <3.5 cm [odds ratio (OR) 4.473, P = 0.022] and salvage resection (OR 3.171, P = 0.045) as independent predictors of PPRM. The estimated PPRM rates were 16.7, 6.3, and 1.3 % for patients with 2, 1, and 0 predictors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PPRM occurred in 4.8 % of ESCC patients following CRT and was associated with AR. An intraoperative frozen section margin analysis should be performed in patients carrying risk factors to avoid unexpected PPRM.
Authors: P van Hagen; M C C M Hulshof; J J B van Lanschot; E W Steyerberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P L Wijnhoven; D J Richel; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; G A P Hospers; J J Bonenkamp; M A Cuesta; R J B Blaisse; O R C Busch; F J W ten Kate; G-J Creemers; C J A Punt; J T M Plukker; H M W Verheul; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; H van Dekken; M J C van der Sangen; T Rozema; K Biermann; J C Beukema; A H M Piet; C M van Rij; J G Reinders; H W Tilanus; A van der Gaast Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Katrin M Sjoquist; Bryan H Burmeister; B Mark Smithers; John R Zalcberg; R John Simes; Andrew Barbour; Val Gebski Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Andrew P Barbour; Nabil P Rizk; Mithat Gonen; Laura Tang; Manjit S Bains; Valerie W Rusch; Daniel G Coit; Murray F Brennan Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 12.969