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: 2.05). 02/2010; 12(1):43-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2009.00121.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.


Available from: Timothy M Pawlik, Apr 28, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Liver resection can improve long-term survival for liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is gaining increasing applications in colorectal liver metastases. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection compared with open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases. Materials and Methods: We performed both database and manual searching for comparative studies published before June 2013 without language or region restriction. Outcomes of interest consisted of perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes. Results: Seven observational studies including 624 patients (241 in the laparoscopic group, 383 in the open group) were included. No randomized controlled trials were available. Pooled long-term oncologic outcomes of overall survival (hazard ratio=0.844; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.412, 1.730; P=.644; I(2)=80.6%) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio=1.234; 95% CI 0.652, 2.333; P=.518; I(2)=79.6%) were similar in both groups. Subgroup analyses of studies with high quality and homogeneity confirmed the above outcomes. However, a lower incidence of R1 resection was observed in the laparoscopic group (relative risk [RR]=0.357; 95% CI 0.180, 0.708; P=.003; I(2)=0.0%) than in the open group. As for perioperative outcomes, laparoscopic hepatectomy presented a lower occurrence of postoperative complications (RR=0.647; 95% CI 0.477, 0.877; P=.005; I(2)=0.0%) and similar mortality (RR=0.625; 95% CI 0.12, 3.25; P=.576; I(2)=0.0%); less blood loss and less need for transfusion were also found in laparoscopic patients, whereas comparable operative time and length of hospital stay were required in the two groups. Conclusions: Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a safe procedure for colorectal liver metastases with long-term survival comparable to that of open hepatectomy. More prospective studies with adequate subgroup analyses are awaited to construct defined criteria for patient selection. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to eliminate potential selection bias and to confirm this conclusion.
    Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 02/2014; 24(4). DOI:10.1089/lap.2013.0399 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several reports have presented conflicting results regarding the association between resection margins (RMs) and outcome after surgery for colorectal liver metastases (CLM), especially in the era of modern chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of RMs on overall survival (OS), time to recurrence (TTR) and local recurrence (LR) status, particularly for patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy. A combined retrospective (1998 to 2008) and prospective (2008 to 2010) cohort study of consecutive patients with CLM without extrahepatic disease treated with primary resection at a medium volume centre. A total of 253 patients with known R status and 242 patients with defined margin width were included in the study. Patients were stratified according to margin width; A: R1, <1 mm (n = 48, 19%), B: 1 to 4 mm (n = 77), C: 5 to 9 mm (n = 46) and D: >=10 mm (n = 71). Median time to recurrence was 12.8 months, and after five years 21.5% had no recurrence. LR (inclusive combined recurrence in other hepatic sites or extrahepatic) occurred in 40 (16.5%) cases, most frequently seen with RMs below 5 mm. Five-year OS was 42.5% in R0 and 16.1% in R1 resections (P = 0.011). Patients were also stratified according to preoperative chemotherapy (n = 88), and the difference in five-year OS between R0 (45.1%) and R1 (14.7%) was maintained (P = 0.037). By multiple Cox regression analysis R1 resections tended to an adverse outcome (P = 0.067), also when adjusting for preoperative chemotherapy (P = 0.081). R1 resections for colorectal liver metastases predict adverse outcome. RMs below 5 mm increased the risk for LR and shortened the time to recurrence. Preoperative chemotherapy did not alter an adverse outcome in R1 vs. R0 patients.
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology 04/2014; 12(1):127. DOI:10.1186/1477-7819-12-127 · 1.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The aim of the authors was to reassess the impact of a positive surgical margin (R1) after a liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CLMs) on survival in the era of modern chemotherapy, through their own experience and a literature review.Methods Inclusion criteria were: R1 or R0 resection with no local treatment modalities, extra-hepatic metastases or other cancer.ResultsAmong 337 patients operated between 2000 and 2010, 273 patients were eligible (214 R0/59 R1). The mean follow-up was 43 ± 29 months. Compared with a R0 resection, a R1 resection offered a lower 5-year overall (39.1% versus 54.2%, P = 0.010), disease-free (15.2% versus 31.1%, P = 0.021) and progression-free (i.e. time to the first non-curable recurrence; 33.1% versus 47.3%, P = 0.033) survival rates. Metastases in the R1 group were more numerous, larger and more frequently synchronous. Independent factors of poor survival were: number, size and short-time interval of CLM occurrence, N status, rectal primary, absence of adjuvant chemotherapy, but not a R1 resection. With the more-systematic administration of chemotherapy since 2005, the intergroup difference in progression-free survival disappeared (P = 0.264).ConclusionA R1 resection had no prognostic value per se but reflected a more severe disease. The recent change in the prognostic value of a R1 resection may be linked to the beneficial effect of chemotherapy.
    HPB 08/2014; 17(2). DOI:10.1111/hpb.12316 · 2.05 Impact Factor