A Critical appraisal of circumferential resection margins in esophageal carcinoma

48Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: In esophageal cancer, circumferential resection margins (CRMs) are considered to be of relevant prognostic value, but a reliable definition of tumor-free CRM is still unclear. The aim of this study was to appraise the clinical prognostic value of microscopic CRM involvement and to determine the optimal limit of CRM. Methods: To define the optimal tumor-free CRM we included 98 consecutive patients who underwent extended esophagectomy with microscopic tumor-free resection margins (R0) between 1997 and 2006. CRMs were measured in tenths of millimeters with inked lateral margins. Outcome of patients with CRM involvement was compared with a statistically comparable control group of 21 patients with microscopic positive resection margins (R1). Results: A cutoff point of CRM at ≤1.0 mm and >1.0 mm appeared to be an adequate marker for survival and prognosis (both P < 0.001). The outcome in patients with CRMs ≤1.0 and >0 mm was equal to that in patients with CRM of 0 mm (P = 0.43). CRM involvement was an independent prognostic factor for both recurrent disease (P = 0.001) and survival (P < 0.001). Survival of patients with positive CRMs (≤1 mm) did not significantly differ from patients with an R1 resection (P = 0.12). Conclusion: Involvement of the circumferential resection margins is an independent prognostic factor for recurrent disease and survival in esophageal cancer. The optimal limit for a positive CRM is ≤1 mm and for a free CRM is >1.0 mm. Patients with unfavorable CRM should be approached as patients with R1 resection with corresponding outcome.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pultrum, B. B., Honing, J., Smit, J. K., Van Dullemen, H. M., Van Dam, G. M., Groen, H., … Plukker, J. T. M. (2010). A Critical appraisal of circumferential resection margins in esophageal carcinoma. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 17(3), 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0827-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free