Cargando…
A Critical Appraisal of Circumferential Resection Margins in Esophageal Carcinoma
BACKGROUND: In esophageal cancer, circumferential resection margins (CRMs) are considered to be of relevant prognostic value, but a reliable definition of tumor-free CRM is still unclear. The aim of this study was to appraise the clinical prognostic value of microscopic CRM involvement and to determ...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer-Verlag
2009
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820690/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19924487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0827-4 |
_version_ | 1782177405292511232 |
---|---|
author | Pultrum, Bareld B. Honing, Judith Smit, Justin K. van Dullemen, Hendrik M. van Dam, Gooitzen M. Groen, Henk Hollema, Harry Plukker, John Th. M. |
author_facet | Pultrum, Bareld B. Honing, Judith Smit, Justin K. van Dullemen, Hendrik M. van Dam, Gooitzen M. Groen, Henk Hollema, Harry Plukker, John Th. M. |
author_sort | Pultrum, Bareld B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In esophageal cancer, circumferential resection margins (CRMs) are considered to be of relevant prognostic value, but a reliable definition of tumor-free CRM is still unclear. The aim of this study was to appraise the clinical prognostic value of microscopic CRM involvement and to determine the optimal limit of CRM. METHODS: To define the optimal tumor-free CRM we included 98 consecutive patients who underwent extended esophagectomy with microscopic tumor-free resection margins (R0) between 1997 and 2006. CRMs were measured in tenths of millimeters with inked lateral margins. Outcome of patients with CRM involvement was compared with a statistically comparable control group of 21 patients with microscopic positive resection margins (R1). RESULTS: A cutoff point of CRM at ≤1.0 mm and >1.0 mm appeared to be an adequate marker for survival and prognosis (both P < 0.001). The outcome in patients with CRMs ≤1.0 and >0 mm was equal to that in patients with CRM of 0 mm (P = 0.43). CRM involvement was an independent prognostic factor for both recurrent disease (P = 0.001) and survival (P < 0.001). Survival of patients with positive CRMs (≤1 mm) did not significantly differ from patients with an R1 resection (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Involvement of the circumferential resection margins is an independent prognostic factor for recurrent disease and survival in esophageal cancer. The optimal limit for a positive CRM is ≤1 mm and for a free CRM is >1.0 mm. Patients with unfavorable CRM should be approached as patients with R1 resection with corresponding outcome. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2820690 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2009 |
publisher | Springer-Verlag |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-28206902010-02-19 A Critical Appraisal of Circumferential Resection Margins in Esophageal Carcinoma Pultrum, Bareld B. Honing, Judith Smit, Justin K. van Dullemen, Hendrik M. van Dam, Gooitzen M. Groen, Henk Hollema, Harry Plukker, John Th. M. Ann Surg Oncol Gastrointestinal Oncology BACKGROUND: In esophageal cancer, circumferential resection margins (CRMs) are considered to be of relevant prognostic value, but a reliable definition of tumor-free CRM is still unclear. The aim of this study was to appraise the clinical prognostic value of microscopic CRM involvement and to determine the optimal limit of CRM. METHODS: To define the optimal tumor-free CRM we included 98 consecutive patients who underwent extended esophagectomy with microscopic tumor-free resection margins (R0) between 1997 and 2006. CRMs were measured in tenths of millimeters with inked lateral margins. Outcome of patients with CRM involvement was compared with a statistically comparable control group of 21 patients with microscopic positive resection margins (R1). RESULTS: A cutoff point of CRM at ≤1.0 mm and >1.0 mm appeared to be an adequate marker for survival and prognosis (both P < 0.001). The outcome in patients with CRMs ≤1.0 and >0 mm was equal to that in patients with CRM of 0 mm (P = 0.43). CRM involvement was an independent prognostic factor for both recurrent disease (P = 0.001) and survival (P < 0.001). Survival of patients with positive CRMs (≤1 mm) did not significantly differ from patients with an R1 resection (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Involvement of the circumferential resection margins is an independent prognostic factor for recurrent disease and survival in esophageal cancer. The optimal limit for a positive CRM is ≤1 mm and for a free CRM is >1.0 mm. Patients with unfavorable CRM should be approached as patients with R1 resection with corresponding outcome. Springer-Verlag 2009-11-19 2010 /pmc/articles/PMC2820690/ /pubmed/19924487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0827-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2009 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Gastrointestinal Oncology Pultrum, Bareld B. Honing, Judith Smit, Justin K. van Dullemen, Hendrik M. van Dam, Gooitzen M. Groen, Henk Hollema, Harry Plukker, John Th. M. A Critical Appraisal of Circumferential Resection Margins in Esophageal Carcinoma |
title | A Critical Appraisal of Circumferential Resection Margins in Esophageal Carcinoma |
title_full | A Critical Appraisal of Circumferential Resection Margins in Esophageal Carcinoma |
title_fullStr | A Critical Appraisal of Circumferential Resection Margins in Esophageal Carcinoma |
title_full_unstemmed | A Critical Appraisal of Circumferential Resection Margins in Esophageal Carcinoma |
title_short | A Critical Appraisal of Circumferential Resection Margins in Esophageal Carcinoma |
title_sort | critical appraisal of circumferential resection margins in esophageal carcinoma |
topic | Gastrointestinal Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820690/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19924487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0827-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pultrumbareldb acriticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT honingjudith acriticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT smitjustink acriticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT vandullemenhendrikm acriticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT vandamgooitzenm acriticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT groenhenk acriticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT hollemaharry acriticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT plukkerjohnthm acriticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT pultrumbareldb criticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT honingjudith criticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT smitjustink criticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT vandullemenhendrikm criticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT vandamgooitzenm criticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT groenhenk criticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT hollemaharry criticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma AT plukkerjohnthm criticalappraisalofcircumferentialresectionmarginsinesophagealcarcinoma |