TY - JOUR
T1 - The Prognostic Value of Varying Definitions of Positive Resection Margin in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases
AU - Wang, Jane
AU - Margonis, Georgios Antonios
AU - Amini, Neda
AU - Andreatos, Nikolaos
AU - Yuan, Chunhui
AU - Damaskos, Christos
AU - Antoniou, Efstathios
AU - Garmpis, Nikolaos
AU - Buettner, Stefan
AU - Barbon, Carlotta
AU - Deshwar, Amar
AU - He, Jin
AU - Burkhart, Richard
AU - Pawlik, Timothy M.
AU - Wolfgang, Christopher L.
AU - Weiss, Matthew J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
PY - 2018/8/1
Y1 - 2018/8/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - CRLM
KW - Margin definition
KW - Resection margin
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045125161&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11605-018-3748-3
DO - 10.1007/s11605-018-3748-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 29633114
AN - SCOPUS:85045125161
SN - 1091-255X
VL - 22
SP - 1350
EP - 1357
JO - Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
JF - Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
IS - 8
ER -