Cargando…

Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery

BACKGROUND: Distal resection margin (DRM) is closely associated with sphincter‐preserving surgery and oncological safety for patients with mid‐low rectal cancers. However, the optimal DRM has not been determined. METHODS: Data of 378 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic‐assisted sphinct...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Chenghai, Cui, Ming, Xing, Jiadi, Yang, Hong, Su, Xiangqian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35088533
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ans.17503
_version_ 1784752354148483072
author Zhang, Chenghai
Cui, Ming
Xing, Jiadi
Yang, Hong
Su, Xiangqian
author_facet Zhang, Chenghai
Cui, Ming
Xing, Jiadi
Yang, Hong
Su, Xiangqian
author_sort Zhang, Chenghai
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Distal resection margin (DRM) is closely associated with sphincter‐preserving surgery and oncological safety for patients with mid‐low rectal cancers. However, the optimal DRM has not been determined. METHODS: Data of 378 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups based on DRM: ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304). To minimize the differences between the two groups, propensity‐score matching on baseline features was performed. RESULTS: Before propensity‐score matching, no significant differences in 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) (92.8% versus 81.3%, P = 0.128) and 5‐year overall survival (OS) (83.7% versus 82.2%, P = 0.892) were observed in patients with DRMs of ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304), respectively. After propensity‐score matching (1:1), there were also no significant differences in DFS (88.1% versus 78.2%, P = 0.162) and OS (84.5% versus 84.9%, P = 0.420) between the DRM of ≤1 cm group (n = 65) and >1 cm group (n = 65), respectively. A total of 44 patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In this cohort, the 5‐year local recurrence (LR) rates (P = 0.118) and the 5‐year DFS rates (P = 0.298) were not significantly different between the two groups. A total of 334 patients received surgery without neoadjuvant CRT. There were also no significant differences in the 5‐year LR rates (P = 0.150) and 5‐year DFS rates (P = 0.172) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When aiming to achieve at least a 1–2 cm distal clinical resection margin, a histological resection margin of <1 cm on the DRM gave equivalent clinical outcomes to a DRM of >1 cm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9305552
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93055522022-07-28 Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery Zhang, Chenghai Cui, Ming Xing, Jiadi Yang, Hong Su, Xiangqian ANZ J Surg Colorectal Surgery BACKGROUND: Distal resection margin (DRM) is closely associated with sphincter‐preserving surgery and oncological safety for patients with mid‐low rectal cancers. However, the optimal DRM has not been determined. METHODS: Data of 378 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups based on DRM: ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304). To minimize the differences between the two groups, propensity‐score matching on baseline features was performed. RESULTS: Before propensity‐score matching, no significant differences in 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) (92.8% versus 81.3%, P = 0.128) and 5‐year overall survival (OS) (83.7% versus 82.2%, P = 0.892) were observed in patients with DRMs of ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304), respectively. After propensity‐score matching (1:1), there were also no significant differences in DFS (88.1% versus 78.2%, P = 0.162) and OS (84.5% versus 84.9%, P = 0.420) between the DRM of ≤1 cm group (n = 65) and >1 cm group (n = 65), respectively. A total of 44 patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In this cohort, the 5‐year local recurrence (LR) rates (P = 0.118) and the 5‐year DFS rates (P = 0.298) were not significantly different between the two groups. A total of 334 patients received surgery without neoadjuvant CRT. There were also no significant differences in the 5‐year LR rates (P = 0.150) and 5‐year DFS rates (P = 0.172) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When aiming to achieve at least a 1–2 cm distal clinical resection margin, a histological resection margin of <1 cm on the DRM gave equivalent clinical outcomes to a DRM of >1 cm. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2022-01-27 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9305552/ /pubmed/35088533 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ans.17503 Text en © 2022 The Authors. ANZ Journal of Surgery published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Colorectal Surgery
Zhang, Chenghai
Cui, Ming
Xing, Jiadi
Yang, Hong
Su, Xiangqian
Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery
title Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery
title_full Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery
title_fullStr Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery
title_full_unstemmed Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery
title_short Oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery
title_sort oncological results in rectal cancer patients with a subcentimetre distal margin after laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery
topic Colorectal Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35088533
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ans.17503
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangchenghai oncologicalresultsinrectalcancerpatientswithasubcentimetredistalmarginafterlaparoscopicassistedsphincterpreservingsurgery
AT cuiming oncologicalresultsinrectalcancerpatientswithasubcentimetredistalmarginafterlaparoscopicassistedsphincterpreservingsurgery
AT xingjiadi oncologicalresultsinrectalcancerpatientswithasubcentimetredistalmarginafterlaparoscopicassistedsphincterpreservingsurgery
AT yanghong oncologicalresultsinrectalcancerpatientswithasubcentimetredistalmarginafterlaparoscopicassistedsphincterpreservingsurgery
AT suxiangqian oncologicalresultsinrectalcancerpatientswithasubcentimetredistalmarginafterlaparoscopicassistedsphincterpreservingsurgery