Prognostic value of the circumferential resection margin and its definitions in esophageal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

被引:13
作者
Depypere, L. [1 ]
Moons, J. [1 ]
Lerut, T. [1 ]
De Hertogh, G. [2 ]
Peters, C. [1 ]
Sagaert, X. [2 ]
Coosemans, W. [1 ]
Van Veer, H. [1 ]
Nafteux, P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Leuven, Dept Thorac Surg, Herestr 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
[2] Univ Hosp Leuven, Dept Pathol, Leuven, Belgium
关键词
College of American Pathologists (CAP); esophageal neoplasm; neoadjuvant therapy; prognosis; resection margin; Royal College of Pathologists (RCP); INVOLVEMENT; CRITERIA; SURGERY; ADENOCARCINOMA; SURVIVAL; MM;
D O I
10.1093/dote/dox117
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
The accepted importance of a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (defined as R1 in the TNM classification) is based on histopathology of the resection specimen obtained after primary surgery in esophageal cancer patients. The aim of this study is to look for the prognostic value of CRM after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and to compare the clinical significance of a histologically CRM < 1 mm from the cut margin (Royal College of Pathologists definition of R1) to a positive cut margin (College of American Pathologists definition of R1) and to >= 1 mm margin (R0) resections in patients with ypT3-esophageal tumors after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Between 2000 and 2014, 458 patients who received esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy were selected. Overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated by means of Kaplan-Meier curves and compared by Cox regression analysis. There were 163 (35.9%) patients who had a ypT3 tumor; in 118 (72.4%) resection was complete (R0). In 37 (22.7%) patients a CRM < 1 mm was found and 8 (4.9%) had a circumferential R1-resection. CRM involvement was inversely correlated with tumor regression grading, lymph node capsular involvement, and number of positive lymph nodes. On univariate analysis, no statistically significant difference was found between R0-resection and CRM < 1 mm (P = 0.103) for OS, but DFS showed a significant difference (P = 0.025). Circumferential R1-resections showed a significant difference compared to R0-resections for OS and DFS (both P = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, extracapsular lymph node involvement and circumferential R1-resection were withheld as independent prognosticators for OS, whereas extracapsular lymph node involvement, absence of regression on the primary tumor and circumferential R1-resection were withheld for DFS. After correcting for different variables in the multivariate model, CRM < 1 mm showed no statistical difference compared to R0-resections neither for OS nor for DFS. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, CRM is correlated with biological behavior of the tumor and with therapy response. Furthermore it is an independent prognosticator for OS and DFS. However CRM < 1mm itself is no independent prognosticator for OS nor DFS survival in multivariable analysis. These results suggest that the definition of R1-resection should be limited to true invasion of the section plane.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 8
页数:8
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [11] Long-term results of RTOG trial 8911 (USA intergroup 113): A random assignment trial comparison of chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer
    Kelsen, David P.
    Winter, Katryn A.
    Gunderson, Leonard L.
    Mortimer, Joanne
    Estes, Norman C.
    Haller, Daniel G.
    Ajani, Jaffer A.
    Kocha, Walter
    Minsky, Bruce D.
    Roth, Jack A.
    Willett, Christopher G.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2007, 25 (24) : 3719 - 3725
  • [12] New 3-Tiered Circumferential Resection Margin Criteria in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma
    Lee, Geun Dong
    Lee, Seung Eun
    Kim, Kyoung-Mee
    Kim, Yong-Hee
    Ahn, Joong Hyun
    Jung, Sinho
    Choi, Yoon-La
    Kim, Hyeong Ryul
    Park, Seung-Il
    Shim, Young Mog
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2015, 262 (06) : 965 - 971
  • [13] Oesophageal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
    Lordick, F.
    Mariette, C.
    Haustermans, K.
    Obermannova, R.
    Arnold, D.
    [J]. ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2016, 27 : v50 - v57
  • [14] MANDARD AM, 1994, CANCER, V73, P2680, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19940601)73:11<2680::AID-CNCR2820731105>3.0.CO
  • [15] 2-C
  • [16] Significance of Microscopically Incomplete Resection Margin After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer
    Markar, Sheraz R.
    Gronnier, Caroline
    Duhamel, Alain
    Pasquer, Arnaud
    Thereaux, Jeremie
    du Rieu, Mael Chalret
    Lefevre, Jeremie H.
    Turner, Kathleen
    Luc, Guillaume
    Mariette, Christophe
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2016, 263 (04) : 712 - 718
  • [17] Lack of Independent Significance of a Close (&lt;1 mm) Circumferential Resection Margin Involvement in Esophageal and Junctional Cancer
    O'Farrell, N. J.
    Donohoe, C. L.
    Muldoon, C.
    Costelloe, J. M.
    King, S.
    Ravi, N.
    Reynolds, J. V.
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 20 (08) : 2727 - 2733
  • [18] Defining a positive circumferential resection margin in oesophageal cancer and its implications for adjuvant treatment
    O'Neill, J. R.
    Stephens, N. A.
    Save, V.
    Kamel, H. M.
    Phillips, H. A.
    Driscoll, P. J.
    Paterson-Brown, S.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2013, 100 (08) : 1055 - 1063
  • [19] The prognostic significance of the positive circumferential resection margin in pathologic T3 squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy
    Okada, Naoya
    Fujii, Satoshi
    Fujita, Takeo
    Kanamori, Jun
    Kojima, Takashi
    Hayashi, Ryuichi
    Daiko, Hiroyuki
    [J]. SURGERY, 2016, 159 (02) : 441 - 450
  • [20] Comparison of Circumferential Resection Margin Clearance Criteria With Survival After Srgery for Cancer of Esophagus
    Rao, V. S. R.
    Yeung, M. M. Y.
    Cooke, J.
    Salim, E.
    Jain, P. K.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2012, 105 (08) : 745 - 749