Hepatic resection for colorectal metastases: The impact of surgical margin status on outcome

Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
HPB (Impact Factor: 2.68). 02/2010; 12(1):43-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2009.00121.x
Source: PubMed


An R0 margin width of 1 cm has traditionally been considered a prerequisite to minimize local recurrence and optimize survival following hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, recent data have called into question the prognostic importance of the '1-cm rule'. Specifically, several studies have noted that, although an R0 resection is important, the actual margin width may not be as critical. We provide a brief overview of the impact of an R1 vs. an R0 resection on local recurrence and overall survival. In addition, we specifically review the impact of margin width in patients who have undergone an R0 resection. Finally, we highlight those factors most associated with an increased likelihood of an R1 resection and provide recommendations for avoiding and dealing with microscopic carcinoma discovered intraoperatively at the cut parenchymal transection margin.

10 Reads
  • Source
    • "In our study, we demonstrated in both univariate and multivariate analyses that the 5-year OS for patients without neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed a marked difference between R0 and R1 resection. Others proposed that margin widths of 2 and 5 mm, respectively, were acceptable and led to similar outcomes compared with 1-cm margin resection.28,29,46 We also analyzed whether margin width ≤2 mm or >2 mm influenced survival. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data from patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy before resection were reviewed and evaluated to see whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy influences the predictive outcome of R1 resections (margin is 0 mm) in patients with CRLM. Between January 2000 and December 2008, all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM were analyzed. Patients were divided into those who did and did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The outcome after R0 (tumor-free margin >0 mm) and R1 (tumor-free margin 0 mm) resection was compared. A total of 264 were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 34 months. Patients without chemotherapy showed a significant difference in median disease-free survival (DFS) after R0 or R1 resection: 17 [95% confidence interval (CI) 10-24] months versus 8 (95% CI 4-12) months (P < 0.001), whereas in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy the difference in DFS between R0 and R1 resection was not significant: 18 (95% CI 10-26) months versus 9 (95% CI 0-20) months (P = 0.303). Patients without chemotherapy showed a significant difference in median overall survival (OS) after R0 or R1 resection: 53 (95% CI 40-66) months versus 30 (95% CI 13-47) months (P < 0.001). In patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the median OS showed no significant difference: 65 (95% CI 39-92) months for the R0 group versus the R1 group, in whom the median OS was not reached (P = 0.645). In patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, R1 resection was of no predictive value for DFS and OS.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2011; 19(5):1618-27. DOI:10.1245/s10434-011-2114-4 · 3.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Resection of certain recurrent malignancies can prolong survival, but resection of recurrent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is typically contraindicated because of poor outcomes. All patients from 1992 to 2010 with recurrent pancreatic cancer after intended surgical cure were retrospectively evaluated. Clinicopathologic features were compared from patients who did and did not undergo subsequent reoperation with curative intent to identify factors associated with prolonged survival. Twenty-one of 426 patients (5 %) with recurrent pancreatic cancer underwent potentially curative reoperation for solitary local-regional (n = 7) or distant (n = 14) recurrence. The median disease-free interval after initial resection among reoperative patients was longer for those with lung or local-regional recurrence (52.4 and 41.1 months, respectively) than for those with liver recurrence (7.6 months, p = 0.006). The median interval between reoperation and second recurrence was longer in patients with lung recurrence (median not reached) than with liver or local-regional recurrence (6 and 9 months, respectively, p = 0.023). Reoperative patients with an initial disease-free interval >20 months had a longer median survival than those who did not (92.3 versus 31.3 months, respectively; p = 0.033). Patients with a solitary pulmonary recurrence of pancreatic cancer after a prolonged disease-free interval should be considered for reoperation, as they are more likely to benefit from resection versus other sites of solitary recurrence.
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 05/2012; 16(9):1696-704. DOI:10.1007/s11605-012-1912-8 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: There is no evidence regarding restaging of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after a long course of neoadjuvant radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. This study evaluated the value of restaging with chest and abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scan after radiotherapy. Methods: Between January 2000 and December 2010, all newly diagnosed patients in our tertiary referral hospital, who underwent a long course of radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer, were analyzed. Patients were only included if they had chest and abdominal imaging before and after radiotherapy treatment. Results: A total of 153 patients who met the inclusion criteria and were treated with curative intent were included. A change in treatment strategy due to new findings on the CT scan after radiotherapy was observed in 18 (12%) of 153 patients. Twelve patients (8%) were spared rectal surgery due to progressive metastatic disease. Conclusions: Restaging with a chest and abdominal CT scan after radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer is advisable because additional findings may alter the treatment strategy.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 08/2012; 20(1). DOI:10.1245/s10434-012-2537-6 · 3.93 Impact Factor
Show more