BACKGROUND: Varying definitions of resection margin clearance are currently employed among patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM). Specifically, a microscopically positive margin (R1) has alternatively been equated with an involved margin (margin width = 0 mm) or a margin width < 1 mm. Consequently, patients with a margin width of 0-1 mm (sub-mm) are inconsistently classified in either the R0 or R1 categories, thus obscuring the prognostic implications of sub-mm margins. METHODS: Six hundred thirty-three patients who underwent resection of CRLM were identified. Both R1 definitions were alternatively employed and multivariable analysis was used to determine the predictive power of each definition, as well as the prognostic implications of a sub-mm margin. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-nine (85.2%) patients had a margin width ≥ 1 mm, 42 had a sub-mm margin width, and 52 had an involved margin (0 mm). A margin width ≥ 1 mm was associated with improved survival vs. a sub-mm margin (65 vs. 36 months; P = 0.03) or an involved margin (65 vs. 33 months; P < 0.001). No significant difference in survival was detected between patients with involved vs. sub-mm margins (P = 0.31). A sub-mm margin and an involved margin were both independent predictors of worse OS (HR 1.66, 1.04-2.67; P = 0.04, and HR 2.14, 1.46-3.16; P < 0.001, respectively) in multivariable analysis. Importantly, after combining the two definitions, patients with either an involved margin or a sub-mm margin were associated with worse OS in multivariable analysis (HR 1.94, 1.41-2.65; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with involved or sub-mm margins demonstrated a similar inferior OS vs. patients with a margin width > 1 mm. Consequently, a uniform definition of R1 as a margin width < 1 mm should perhaps be employed by future studies.
BACKGROUND: Varying definitions of resection margin clearance are currently employed among patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM). Specifically, a microscopically positive margin (R1) has alternatively been equated with an involved margin (margin width = 0 mm) or a margin width < 1 mm. Consequently, patients with a margin width of 0-1 mm (sub-mm) are inconsistently classified in either the R0 or R1 categories, thus obscuring the prognostic implications of sub-mm margins. METHODS: Six hundred thirty-three patients who underwent resection of CRLM were identified. Both R1 definitions were alternatively employed and multivariable analysis was used to determine the predictive power of each definition, as well as the prognostic implications of a sub-mm margin. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-nine (85.2%) patients had a margin width ≥ 1 mm, 42 had a sub-mm margin width, and 52 had an involved margin (0 mm). A margin width ≥ 1 mm was associated with improved survival vs. a sub-mm margin (65 vs. 36 months; P = 0.03) or an involved margin (65 vs. 33 months; P < 0.001). No significant difference in survival was detected between patients with involved vs. sub-mm margins (P = 0.31). A sub-mm margin and an involved margin were both independent predictors of worse OS (HR 1.66, 1.04-2.67; P = 0.04, and HR 2.14, 1.46-3.16; P < 0.001, respectively) in multivariable analysis. Importantly, after combining the two definitions, patients with either an involved margin or a sub-mm margin were associated with worse OS in multivariable analysis (HR 1.94, 1.41-2.65; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with involved or sub-mm margins demonstrated a similar inferior OS vs. patients with a margin width > 1 mm. Consequently, a uniform definition of R1 as a margin width < 1 mm should perhaps be employed by future studies.
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: 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: Dhanwant Gomez; Abed M Zaitoun; Antonella De Rosa; Sina Hossaini; Ian J Beckingham; Adam Brooks; Iain C Cameron Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 3.647
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: Eran Sadot; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Julie N Leal; Jinru Shia; Mithat Gonen; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; T Peter Kingham; Nancy Kemeny; Leslie H Blumgart; William R Jarnagin; Michael I DʼAngelica Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Ulf Kulik; Mareike Plohmann-Meyer; Jill Gwiasda; Joline Kolb; Daniel Meyer; Alexander Kaltenborn; Frank Lehner; Jürgen Klempnauer; Harald Schrem Journal: HPB Surg Date: 2018-10-21
Authors: Mariana I Chavez; Sepideh Gholami; Bradford J Kim; Georgios A Margonis; Cecilia G Ethun; Susan Tsai; Kathleen K Christians; Callisia Clarke; Harveshp Mogal; Shishir K Maithel; Timothy M Pawlik; Michael I D'Angelica; Thomas A Aloia; Daniel Eastwood; T Clark Gamblin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Shahid Ahmed; Nicholas Bosma; Michael Moser; Shahida Ahmed; Bryan Brunet; Janine Davies; Corinne Doll; Dorie-Anna Dueck; Christina A Kim; Shuying Ji; Duc Le; Richard Lee-Ying; Howard Lim; John Paul McGhie; Karen Mulder; Jason Park; Deepti Ravi; Daniel J Renouf; Devin Schellenberg; Ralph P W Wong; Adnan Zaidi Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 3.677