High Rate of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin in Colon Cancer: A National Appraisal and Call for Action.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2022
01 12 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
26
2
2021
medline:
11
11
2022
entrez:
25
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To identify rates of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) for colon cancer surgery in the US. CRM is one of the most important determinants of local control in colorectal cancers. The extent to which CRM involvement exists after colon cancer surgery is unknown. Colon cancer cases with resection 2010 to 2015 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base. Adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, comparisons were made between cases with CRM > 1 mm (negative margin) and those with margin involved with tumor or ≤ 1 mm (positive margin, CRM+). Hospital-level analysis was performed, examining observed-to-expected CRM+ rates. In total, 170,022 cases were identified: 150,291 CRM- and 19,731 CRM+ (11.6%). Pathologic T-category was the greatest predictor of CRM+, with higher rates in pT4(25.8%), pT4A(24.7%), and pT4B(31.5%) versus pT1(4.5%), pT2(6.3%) and pT3 (10.9%, P < 0.001). Within pT4 patients, predictors of CRM+ included signet-ring histology (38.1% vs 26.7% nonmucinous, and 26.9% mucinous adenocarcinoma, P < 0.001), removing < 12 lymph nodes (36.5% vs 26.1% >12, P < 0.001), community facilities (32.7%) versus academic/research (23.6%, P < 0.001), year (30.1% 2010 vs 22.6% 2015, P < 0.001), and hospital volume (24.5% highest quartile vs 32.7% lowest, P < 0.001). Across 1288 hospitals, observed-to-expected ratios for CRM+ ranged from 0 to 7.899; 429 facilities had higher than expected rates. Overall rate of CRM+ in US colon cancer cases is high. Variation exists across hospitals, with higher than expected rates in many facilities. Although biology is a major influencing factor, CRM+ rates represent an area for multidisciplinary improvement in quality of colon cancer care.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To identify rates of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) for colon cancer surgery in the US.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
CRM is one of the most important determinants of local control in colorectal cancers. The extent to which CRM involvement exists after colon cancer surgery is unknown.
METHODS
Colon cancer cases with resection 2010 to 2015 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base. Adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, comparisons were made between cases with CRM > 1 mm (negative margin) and those with margin involved with tumor or ≤ 1 mm (positive margin, CRM+). Hospital-level analysis was performed, examining observed-to-expected CRM+ rates.
RESULTS
In total, 170,022 cases were identified: 150,291 CRM- and 19,731 CRM+ (11.6%). Pathologic T-category was the greatest predictor of CRM+, with higher rates in pT4(25.8%), pT4A(24.7%), and pT4B(31.5%) versus pT1(4.5%), pT2(6.3%) and pT3 (10.9%, P < 0.001). Within pT4 patients, predictors of CRM+ included signet-ring histology (38.1% vs 26.7% nonmucinous, and 26.9% mucinous adenocarcinoma, P < 0.001), removing < 12 lymph nodes (36.5% vs 26.1% >12, P < 0.001), community facilities (32.7%) versus academic/research (23.6%, P < 0.001), year (30.1% 2010 vs 22.6% 2015, P < 0.001), and hospital volume (24.5% highest quartile vs 32.7% lowest, P < 0.001). Across 1288 hospitals, observed-to-expected ratios for CRM+ ranged from 0 to 7.899; 429 facilities had higher than expected rates.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall rate of CRM+ in US colon cancer cases is high. Variation exists across hospitals, with higher than expected rates in many facilities. Although biology is a major influencing factor, CRM+ rates represent an area for multidisciplinary improvement in quality of colon cancer care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33630474
pii: 00000658-202212000-00013
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004682
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1023-1028Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
GJC has received research support from Agendia, and honoraria for consultancy from MORE Health and Medicaroid. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, et al. Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2009;373:821–828.
Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, et al. Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2002;235:449–457.
Wibe A, Rendedal PR, Svensson E, et al. Prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2002;89:327–334.
Massarweh NN, Hu CY, You YN, et al. Risk-adjusted pathologic margin positivity rate as a quality indicator in rectal cancer surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2967–2974.
Adam IJ, Mohamdee MO, Martin IG, et al. Role of circumferential margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer. Lancet. 1994;344:707–711.
Bernstein TE, Endreseth BH, Romundstad P, et al. Circumferential resection margin as a prognostic factor in rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1348–1357.
Bernstein TE, Endreseth BH, Romundstad P, et al. Improved local control of rectal cancer reduces distant metastases. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e668–e678.
Nedrebo BS, Soreide K, Eriksen MT, et al. Excess mortality after curative surgery for colorectal cancer changes over time and differs for patients with colon versus rectal cancer. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:933–940.
West NP, Hohenberger W, Weber K, et al. Complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation produces an oncologically superior specimen compared with standard surgery for carcinoma of the colon. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:272–278.
Sheehan-Dare GE, Marks KM, Tinkler-Hundal E, et al. The effect of a multidisciplinary regional educational programme on the quality of colon cancer resection. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20:105–115.
Bilimoria KY, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, et al. The National Cancer Data Base: a powerful initiative to improve cancer care in the United States. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:683–690.
Winchester DP, Stewart AK, Phillips JL, et al. The national cancer data base: past, present, and future. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:4–7.
Fritz AGA, Parkin D, Percy C, et al. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology: ICD-O. Third ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000.
Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–619.
Patel SH, Hu CY, Massarweh NN, et al. Circumferential resection margin as a hospital quality assessment tool for rectal cancer surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230:1008–1018.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1495–1499.
Fleshman J, Branda ME, Sargent DJ, et al. Disease-free survival and local recurrence for laparoscopic resection compared with open resection of stage II to III rectal cancer: follow-up results of the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019;269:589–595.
Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, et al. Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1356–1363.
West NP, Morris EJ, Rotimi O, et al. Pathology grading of colon cancer surgical resection and its association with survival: a retrospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:857–865.
Khan MA, Hakeem AR, Scott N, et al. Significance of R1 resection margin in colon cancer resections in the modern era. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:943–953.
Gietelink L, Wouters MW, Tanis PJ, et al. Reduced circumferential resection margin involvement in rectal cancer surgery: results of the dutch surgical colorectal audit. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13:1111–1119.
Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:638–646.
Wibe A, Moller B, Norstein J, et al. A national strategic change in treatment policy for rectal cancer–implementation of total mesorectal excision as routine treatment in Norway. A national audit. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:857–866.
Ortiz H, Wibe A, Ciga MA, et al. Impact of a multidisciplinary team training programme on rectal cancer outcomes in Spain. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:544–551.
Bertelsen CA, Neuenschwander AU, Jansen JE, et al. Disease-free survival after complete mesocolic excision compared with conventional colon cancer surgery: a retrospective, population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:161–168.
Beyond TME Collaborative. Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1009–1014.
Foxtrot Collaborative Group. Feasibility of preoperative chemotherapy for locally advanced, operable colon cancer: the pilot phase of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:1152–1160.
Seymour MT, Morton D, Investigators obotIFT. FOxTROT: an international randomised controlled trial in 1052 patients (pts) evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:3504–13504.