Cargando…
The “Real R0”: A Resection Margin Smaller Than 0.1 cm is Associated with a Poor Prognosis After Oncologic Esophagectomy
BACKGROUND: Although resection margin (R) status is a widely used prognostic factor after esophagectomy, the definition of positive margins (R1) is not universal. The Royal College of Pathologists considers R1 resection to be a distance less than 0.1 cm, whereas the College of American Pathologists...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8519834/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34041624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10121-y |
_version_ | 1784584536672174080 |
---|---|
author | St-Amour, Penelope Winiker, Michael Sempoux, Christine Fasquelle, François Demartines, Nicolas Schäfer, Markus Mantziari, Styliani |
author_facet | St-Amour, Penelope Winiker, Michael Sempoux, Christine Fasquelle, François Demartines, Nicolas Schäfer, Markus Mantziari, Styliani |
author_sort | St-Amour, Penelope |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Although resection margin (R) status is a widely used prognostic factor after esophagectomy, the definition of positive margins (R1) is not universal. The Royal College of Pathologists considers R1 resection to be a distance less than 0.1 cm, whereas the College of American Pathologists considers it to be a distance of 0.0 cm. This study assessed the predictive value of R status after oncologic esophagectomy, comparing survival and recurrence among patients with R0 resection (> 0.1-cm clearance), R0+ resection (≤ 0.1-cm clearance), and R1 resection (0.0-cm clearance). METHODS: The study enrolled all eligible patients undergoing curative oncologic esophagectomy between 2012 and 2018. Clinicopathologic features, survival, and recurrence were compared for R0, R0+, and R1 patients. Categorical variables were compared with the chi-square or Fisher’s test, and continuous variables were compared with the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, whereas the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression were used for survival analysis. RESULTS: Among the 160 patients included in this study, 113 resections (70.6%) were R0, 34 (21.3%) were R0+, and 13 (8.1%) were R1. The R0 patients had a better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) than the R0+ and R1 patients. The R0+ resection offered a lower long-term recurrence risk than the R1 resection, and the R status was independently associated with DFS, but not OS, in the multivariate analysis. Both the R0+ and R1 patients had significantly more adverse histologic features (lymphovascular and perineural invasion) than the R0 patients and experienced more distant and locoregional recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Although R status is an independent predictor of DFS after oncologic esophagectomy, the < 0.1-cm definition for R1 resection seems more appropriate than the 0.0-cm definition as an indicator of poor tumor biology, long-term recurrence, and survival. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10121-y. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8519834 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85198342021-10-29 The “Real R0”: A Resection Margin Smaller Than 0.1 cm is Associated with a Poor Prognosis After Oncologic Esophagectomy St-Amour, Penelope Winiker, Michael Sempoux, Christine Fasquelle, François Demartines, Nicolas Schäfer, Markus Mantziari, Styliani Ann Surg Oncol Gastrointestinal Oncology BACKGROUND: Although resection margin (R) status is a widely used prognostic factor after esophagectomy, the definition of positive margins (R1) is not universal. The Royal College of Pathologists considers R1 resection to be a distance less than 0.1 cm, whereas the College of American Pathologists considers it to be a distance of 0.0 cm. This study assessed the predictive value of R status after oncologic esophagectomy, comparing survival and recurrence among patients with R0 resection (> 0.1-cm clearance), R0+ resection (≤ 0.1-cm clearance), and R1 resection (0.0-cm clearance). METHODS: The study enrolled all eligible patients undergoing curative oncologic esophagectomy between 2012 and 2018. Clinicopathologic features, survival, and recurrence were compared for R0, R0+, and R1 patients. Categorical variables were compared with the chi-square or Fisher’s test, and continuous variables were compared with the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, whereas the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression were used for survival analysis. RESULTS: Among the 160 patients included in this study, 113 resections (70.6%) were R0, 34 (21.3%) were R0+, and 13 (8.1%) were R1. The R0 patients had a better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) than the R0+ and R1 patients. The R0+ resection offered a lower long-term recurrence risk than the R1 resection, and the R status was independently associated with DFS, but not OS, in the multivariate analysis. Both the R0+ and R1 patients had significantly more adverse histologic features (lymphovascular and perineural invasion) than the R0 patients and experienced more distant and locoregional recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Although R status is an independent predictor of DFS after oncologic esophagectomy, the < 0.1-cm definition for R1 resection seems more appropriate than the 0.0-cm definition as an indicator of poor tumor biology, long-term recurrence, and survival. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10121-y. Springer International Publishing 2021-05-26 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8519834/ /pubmed/34041624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10121-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Gastrointestinal Oncology St-Amour, Penelope Winiker, Michael Sempoux, Christine Fasquelle, François Demartines, Nicolas Schäfer, Markus Mantziari, Styliani The “Real R0”: A Resection Margin Smaller Than 0.1 cm is Associated with a Poor Prognosis After Oncologic Esophagectomy |
title | The “Real R0”: A Resection Margin Smaller Than 0.1 cm is Associated with a Poor Prognosis After Oncologic Esophagectomy |
title_full | The “Real R0”: A Resection Margin Smaller Than 0.1 cm is Associated with a Poor Prognosis After Oncologic Esophagectomy |
title_fullStr | The “Real R0”: A Resection Margin Smaller Than 0.1 cm is Associated with a Poor Prognosis After Oncologic Esophagectomy |
title_full_unstemmed | The “Real R0”: A Resection Margin Smaller Than 0.1 cm is Associated with a Poor Prognosis After Oncologic Esophagectomy |
title_short | The “Real R0”: A Resection Margin Smaller Than 0.1 cm is Associated with a Poor Prognosis After Oncologic Esophagectomy |
title_sort | “real r0”: a resection margin smaller than 0.1 cm is associated with a poor prognosis after oncologic esophagectomy |
topic | Gastrointestinal Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8519834/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34041624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10121-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT stamourpenelope therealr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT winikermichael therealr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT sempouxchristine therealr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT fasquellefrancois therealr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT demartinesnicolas therealr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT schafermarkus therealr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT mantziaristyliani therealr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT stamourpenelope realr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT winikermichael realr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT sempouxchristine realr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT fasquellefrancois realr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT demartinesnicolas realr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT schafermarkus realr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy AT mantziaristyliani realr0aresectionmarginsmallerthan01cmisassociatedwithapoorprognosisafteroncologicesophagectomy |