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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: St-Amour, Penelope, Winiker, Michael, Sempoux, Christine, Fasquelle, François, Demartines, Nicolas, Schäfer, Markus, Mantziari, Styliani
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