Prognostic Value of the Circumferential Resection Margin After Curative Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Journal
Diseases of the colon and rectum
ISSN: 1530-0358
Titre abrégé: Dis Colon Rectum
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2023
01 07 2023
Historique:
medline:
15
6
2023
pubmed:
30
3
2022
entrez:
29
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recently, positive circumferential resection margin has been found to be an indicator of advanced disease with a high risk of distant recurrence rather than local recurrence. The study aimed to analyze the prognostic impact of the circumferential resection margin on long-term oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer. This was a multicenter, propensity score-matched (2:1) analysis comparing the positive and negative circumferential resection margins. The study was conducted at 5 high-volume centers in Spain. Patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with curative intent for middle-low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2014 were included. The main outcomes were local recurrence, distant recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival. The unmatched initial cohort consisted of 1599 patients, of whom 4.9% had a positive circumferential resection margin. After matching, 234 patients were included (156 with a negative circumferential margin and 78 with a positive circumferential margin). The median follow-up period was 52.5 (22.0-69.5) months. Local recurrence was significantly higher in patients with a positive circumferential margin (33.3% vs 11.5%; p < 0.001). Distant recurrence was similar in both groups (46.2% vs 42.3%; p = 0.651). There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival (48.6% vs 43.6%; p = 0.14). Disease-free survival was lower in patients with a positive circumferential margin (36.1% vs 52.3%; p = 0.026). This study was limited by its retrospective design. The different neoadjuvant treatment options were not included in the propensity score. The positive circumferential resection margin was associated with a higher local recurrence rate and worse disease-free survival in comparison with the negative circumferential resection margin. However, the positive circumferential resection margin was not a prognostic indicator of distant recurrence and overall survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B950 . ANTECEDENTES:En los últimos años, se ha encontrado que el margen de resección circunferencial positivo es un indicador de enfermedad avanzada con alto riesgo de recurrencia a distancia más que de recurrencia local.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue analizar el impacto pronóstico del margen de resección circunferencial sobre la recidiva local, a distancia y las tasas de supervivencia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Este fue un análisis multicéntrico emparejado por puntaje de propensión 2: 1 que comparó el margen de resección circunferencial positivo y negativo.AJUSTES:El estudio se realizó en 5 centros Españoles de alto volumen.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a escisión total de mesorrecto con intención curativa por cáncer de recto medio-bajo entre 2006-2014. Las características clínicas e histológicas se utilizaron para el emparejamiento.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultadoes principales fueron la recurrencia local, la recurrencia a distancia, la supervivencia global y libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La cohorte inicial no emparejada consistió en 1599 pacientes; El 4,9% tuvo un margen de resección circunferencial positivo. Tras el emparejamiento se incluyeron 234 pacientes (156 con margen circunferencial negativo y 78 con margen circunferencial positivo). La mediana del período de seguimiento fue de 52,5 meses (22,0-69,5). La recurrencia local fue significativamente mayor en pacientes con margen circunferencial positivo, 33,3% vs 11,5% [HR 3,2; IC 95%: 1,83-5,43; p < 0,001]. La recidiva a distancia fue similar en ambos grupos (46,2 % frente a 42,3 %) [HR 1,09, IC 95 %: 0,78-1,90; p = 0,651]. No hubo diferencias significativas en la supervivencia global a 5 años (48,6 % frente a 43,6 %) [HR 1,09, IC 95 %: 0,92-1,78; p = 0,14]; La supervivencia libre de enfermedad fue menor en pacientes con margen circunferencial positivo, 36,1% vs 52,3% [HR 1,5; IC 95%: 1,05-2,06; p = 0,026].LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por el diseño retrospectivo. Las diferentes opciones de tratamientos neoadyuvantes no se han incluido en la puntuación de propensión.CONCLUSIONES:El margen de resección circunferencial positivo se asocia con una mayor tasa de recurrencia local y peor supervivencia libre de enfermedad en comparación con el margen de resección circunferencial negativo. Sin embargo, el margen de resección circunferencial positivo no fue un indicador pronóstico de recidiva a distancia ni de supervivencia global. Consulte el Video del Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B950 . (Traducción- Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Recently, positive circumferential resection margin has been found to be an indicator of advanced disease with a high risk of distant recurrence rather than local recurrence.
OBJECTIVE
The study aimed to analyze the prognostic impact of the circumferential resection margin on long-term oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.
DESIGN
This was a multicenter, propensity score-matched (2:1) analysis comparing the positive and negative circumferential resection margins.
SETTINGS
The study was conducted at 5 high-volume centers in Spain.
PATIENTS
Patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with curative intent for middle-low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2014 were included.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The main outcomes were local recurrence, distant recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival.
RESULTS
The unmatched initial cohort consisted of 1599 patients, of whom 4.9% had a positive circumferential resection margin. After matching, 234 patients were included (156 with a negative circumferential margin and 78 with a positive circumferential margin). The median follow-up period was 52.5 (22.0-69.5) months. Local recurrence was significantly higher in patients with a positive circumferential margin (33.3% vs 11.5%; p < 0.001). Distant recurrence was similar in both groups (46.2% vs 42.3%; p = 0.651). There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year overall survival (48.6% vs 43.6%; p = 0.14). Disease-free survival was lower in patients with a positive circumferential margin (36.1% vs 52.3%; p = 0.026).
LIMITATIONS
This study was limited by its retrospective design. The different neoadjuvant treatment options were not included in the propensity score.
CONCLUSIONS
The positive circumferential resection margin was associated with a higher local recurrence rate and worse disease-free survival in comparison with the negative circumferential resection margin. However, the positive circumferential resection margin was not a prognostic indicator of distant recurrence and overall survival. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B950 .
VALOR PRONSTICO DEL MARGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA CURATIVA PARA EL CNCER DE RECTO UN ANLISIS MULTICNTRICO EMPAREJADO POR PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN
ANTECEDENTES:En los últimos años, se ha encontrado que el margen de resección circunferencial positivo es un indicador de enfermedad avanzada con alto riesgo de recurrencia a distancia más que de recurrencia local.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue analizar el impacto pronóstico del margen de resección circunferencial sobre la recidiva local, a distancia y las tasas de supervivencia en pacientes con cáncer de recto.DISEÑO:Este fue un análisis multicéntrico emparejado por puntaje de propensión 2: 1 que comparó el margen de resección circunferencial positivo y negativo.AJUSTES:El estudio se realizó en 5 centros Españoles de alto volumen.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a escisión total de mesorrecto con intención curativa por cáncer de recto medio-bajo entre 2006-2014. Las características clínicas e histológicas se utilizaron para el emparejamiento.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultadoes principales fueron la recurrencia local, la recurrencia a distancia, la supervivencia global y libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La cohorte inicial no emparejada consistió en 1599 pacientes; El 4,9% tuvo un margen de resección circunferencial positivo. Tras el emparejamiento se incluyeron 234 pacientes (156 con margen circunferencial negativo y 78 con margen circunferencial positivo). La mediana del período de seguimiento fue de 52,5 meses (22,0-69,5). La recurrencia local fue significativamente mayor en pacientes con margen circunferencial positivo, 33,3% vs 11,5% [HR 3,2; IC 95%: 1,83-5,43; p < 0,001]. La recidiva a distancia fue similar en ambos grupos (46,2 % frente a 42,3 %) [HR 1,09, IC 95 %: 0,78-1,90; p = 0,651]. No hubo diferencias significativas en la supervivencia global a 5 años (48,6 % frente a 43,6 %) [HR 1,09, IC 95 %: 0,92-1,78; p = 0,14]; La supervivencia libre de enfermedad fue menor en pacientes con margen circunferencial positivo, 36,1% vs 52,3% [HR 1,5; IC 95%: 1,05-2,06; p = 0,026].LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por el diseño retrospectivo. Las diferentes opciones de tratamientos neoadyuvantes no se han incluido en la puntuación de propensión.CONCLUSIONES:El margen de resección circunferencial positivo se asocia con una mayor tasa de recurrencia local y peor supervivencia libre de enfermedad en comparación con el margen de resección circunferencial negativo. Sin embargo, el margen de resección circunferencial positivo no fue un indicador pronóstico de recidiva a distancia ni de supervivencia global. Consulte el Video del Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B950 . (Traducción- Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35348529
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002294
pii: 00003453-202307000-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Video-Audio Media
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
887-897Informations de copyright
Copyright © The ASCRS 2022.
Références
Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg. 1982;69:613–616.
Bosset JF, Collette L, Calais G, et al.; EORTC Radiotherapy Group Trial 22921. Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1114–1123.
Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al.; Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:638–646.
Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS. Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet. 1986;2:996–999.
Lin HH, Lin JK, Lin CC, et al. Circumferential margin plays an independent impact on the outcome of rectal cancer patients receiving curative total mesorectal excision. Am J Surg. 2013;206:771–777.
Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:303–312.
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.
Gravante G, Hemingway D, Stephenson JA, et al. Rectal cancers with microscopic circumferential resection margin involvement (R1 resections): survivals, patterns of recurrence, and prognostic factors. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114:642–648.
Tilly C, Lefèvre JH, Svrcek M, et al. R1 rectal resection: look up and don’t look down. Ann Surg. 2014;260:794–799.
Debove C, Maggiori L, Chau A, Kanso F, Ferron M, Panis Y. Risk factors for circumferential R1 resection after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a study in 233 consecutive patients with mid or low rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30:197–203.
Pettersson D, Lörinc E, Holm T, et al. Tumour regression in the randomized Stockholm III Trial of radiotherapy regimens for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2015;102:972–978.
Abdelrazeq AS, Scott N, Thorn C, et al. The impact of spontaneous tumour perforation on outcome following colon cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:775–780.
Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, et al. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:1569–1580.
Bernstein TE, Endreseth BH, Romundstad P, Wibe A; Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Group. Circumferential resection margin as a prognostic factor in rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1348–1357.
Shihab OC, Quirke P, Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Brown G. Magnetic resonance imaging-detected lymph nodes close to the mesorectal fascia are rarely a cause of margin involvement after total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1431–1436.
Debove C, Maggiori L, Chau A, Kanso F, Ferron M, Panis Y. What happens after R1 resection in patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer? A study in 333 consecutive patients. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:197–204.
Khani MH, Smedh K, Kraaz W. Is the circumferential resection margin a predictor of local recurrence after preoperative radiotherapy and optimal surgery for rectal carcinoma? Colorectal Dis. 2007;9:706–712.
Park JS, Huh JW, Park YA, et al. A circumferential resection margin of 1 mm is a negative prognostic factor in rectal cancer patients with and without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:933–940.
Denost Q, Assenat V, Vendrely V, et al. Oncological strategy following R1 sphincter-saving resection in low rectal cancer after chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47:1683–1690.
Nikberg M, Kindler C, Chabok A, Letocha H, Shetye J, Smedh K. Circumferential resection margin as a prognostic marker in the modern multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:275–282.
Biondo S, Ortiz H, Lujan J, et al. Quality of mesorectum after laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer—results of an audited teaching programme in Spain. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12:24–31.
Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al.; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1500–1524.
Glynne-Jones R, Wyrwicz L, Tiret E, et al.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Rectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(suppl 4):iv22–iv40.
Cambray M, Gonzalez-Viguera J, Berenguer MA, et al. Short-course radiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2020;11:e00162.
Rullier E, Denost Q, Vendrely V, Rullier A, Laurent C. Low rectal cancer: classification and standardization of surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:560–567.
Quirke P, Dixon MF. The prediction of local recurrence in rectal adenocarcinoma by histopathological examination. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1988;3:127–131.
Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JH; Cooperative Clinical Investigators of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1729–1734.
Yao XI, Wang X, Speicher PJ, et al. Reporting and guidelines in propensity score analysis: a systematic review of cancer and cancer surgical studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109:djw323.
Warrier SK, Kong JC, Guerra GR, et al. Risk factors associated with circumferential resection margin positivity in rectal cancer: a binational registry study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61:433–440.
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.
Ortiz H, Wibe A, Ciga MA, et al.; Spanish Rectal Cancer Project. Multicenter study of outcome in relation to the type of resection in rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:811–822.
Espín E, Ciga MA, Pera M, Ortiz H; Spanish Rectal Cancer Project. Oncological outcome following anastomotic leak in rectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102:416–422.
Ortiz H, Wibe A, Ciga MA, Lujan J, Codina A, Biondo S; Spanish Rectal Cancer Project. Impact of a multidisciplinary team training programme on rectal cancer outcomes in Spain. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:544–551.
Ngan SY, Burmeister B, Fisher RJ, et al. Randomized trial of short-course radiotherapy versus long-course chemoradiation comparing rates of local recurrence in patients with T3 rectal cancer: Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group trial 01.04. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3827–3833.
Engelen SM, Maas M, Lahaye MJ, et al. Modern multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer based on staging with magnetic resonance imaging leads to excellent local control, but distant control remains a challenge. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:2311–2320.
Leite JS, Martins SC, Oliveira J, Cunha MF, Castro-Sousa F. Clinical significance of macroscopic completeness of mesorectal resection in rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:381–386.
Rullier A, Gourgou-Bourgade S, Jarlier M, et al. Predictive factors of positive circumferential resection margin after radiochemotherapy for rectal cancer: the French randomised trial ACCORD12/0405 PRODIGE 2. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:82–89.
West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJ, Holm T, Quirke P; European Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Study Group. Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97:588–599.
Zhu S, Brodin NP, English K, et al. Comparing outcomes following total neoadjuvant therapy and following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. EClinicalMedicine. 2019;16:23–29.
Van Zoggel DMGI, Bosman SJ, Kusters M, et al. Preliminary results of a cohort study of induction chemotherapy-based treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105:447–452.
Bahadoer RR, Dijkstra EA, van Etten B, et al.; RAPIDO collaborative investigators. Short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy before total mesorectal excision (TME) versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy, TME, and optional adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer (RAPIDO): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:29–42.
Conroy T, Bosset JF, Etienne PL, et al.; Unicancer Gastrointestinal Group and Partenariat de Recherche en Oncologie Digestive (PRODIGE) Group. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (UNICANCER-PRODIGE 23): A multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:702–715.