Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 8/2013

01-08-2013 | Thoracic Oncology

Lack of Independent Significance of a Close (<1 mm) Circumferential Resection Margin Involvement in Esophageal and Junctional Cancer

Authors: N. J. O’Farrell, MB BCh, C. L. Donohoe, MB BCh, C. Muldoon, MB FRCPath, J. M. Costelloe, MB BCh, S. King, BSc, N. Ravi, MD, FRCSI, J. V. Reynolds, MD, FRCSI

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 8/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

For rectal cancer, an involved circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as tumor cells within 1 mm of the CRM, is of established prognostic significance. This definition for the esophagus, however, is controversial, with the UK Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) recommending the 1 mm definition, while the College of American Pathologists (CAP) advises that only tumor cells at the cut margin (0 mm) define an incomplete (R1) resection. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical significance of both definitions in patients with pT3 tumors.

Methods

CAP- and RCP-defined CRM status in patients treated by surgery only or by multimodal therapy was recorded prospectively in a comprehensive database from May 2003 to May 2011. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were generated, and factors affecting survival were assessed by univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

A total of 157 of 340 patients had pT3 esophageal tumors, with RCP-positive CRM in 60 %, and 18 % by CAP. There were no significant differences between RCP-positive CRM and negative margins for node-positive disease, local recurrence, and survival. CAP-positive CRM was associated with positive nodes (P = 0.036) and poorer survival (P = 0.023). Multivariate analysis revealed nodal invasion to be the only independent prognostic variable (P = 0.004).

Conclusions

A CRM margin of <1 mm is common in pT3 esophageal tumors, a finding consistent with other reports. The <1 mm definition was not associated with node positivity, local recurrence, or survival, in contrast to actual involvement at the margin, suggesting lack of independent prognostic significance of the RCP definition and possible superiority of the CAP criteria for prospective registration of CRM.
Literature
1.
2.
Forman D. Review article: oesophago-gastric adenocarcinoma—an epidemiological perspective. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20(Suppl 5):55–60.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Reynolds JV, McGillycuddy E, Ravi N, et al. Modern oncologic and operative outcomes for oesophageal cancer treated with curative intent. Ir Med J. 2011;104:235–8.PubMed
4.
Liu J, Xie X, Zhou C, Peng S, Rao D, Fu J. Which factors are associated with actual 5-year survival of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41:e7–11.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Waraich N, Rashid F, Jan A, et al. Vascular invasion is not a risk factor in oesophageal cancer recurrence. Int J Surg. 2011;9:237–40.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Lerut T, Moons J, Coosemans W, et al. Postoperative complications after transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction are correlated with early cancer recurrence: role of systematic grading of complications using the modified Clavien classification. Ann Surg. 2009;250:798–807.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ, et al. Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2002;235:449–57.PubMedCrossRef
8.
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(8514):996–9.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Adam IJ, Mohamdee MO, Martin IG, et al. Role of circumferential margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer. Lancet. 1994;344(8924):707–11.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Pathologists RCo. Dataset for the histopathological reporting of oesophageal carcinoma. In press.
11.
Edge SB BD, Compton CC, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2010.
12.
Deeter M, Dorer R, Kuppusamy MK, Koehler RP, Low DE. Assessment of criteria and clinical significance of circumferential resection margins in esophageal cancer. Arch Surg. 2009;144:618–24.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Pultrum BB, Honing J, Smit JK, et al. A critical appraisal of circumferential resection margins in esophageal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:812–20.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Dexter SP, Sue-Ling H, McMahon MJ, Quirke P, Mapstone N, Martin IG. Circumferential resection margin involvement: an independent predictor of survival following surgery for oesophageal cancer. Gut. 2001;48:667–70.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Reynolds JV, Muldoon C, Hollywood D, et al. Long-term outcomes following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2007;245:707–16.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Reynolds JV, Ravi N, Muldoon C, et al. Differential pathologic variables and outcomes across the spectrum of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. World J Surg. 2010;34:2821–29.PubMedCrossRef
17.
American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002.
18.
American Joint Committee on Cancer. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2009.
19.
Sobin LH GM, Wittekind C. TMN classification of malignant tumours. 2009.
20.
Reynolds JV, Donohoe CL, McGillycuddy E, et al. Evolving progress in oncologic and operative outcomes for esophageal and junctional cancer: lessons from the experience of a high-volume center. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:1130–7.e1.
21.
Sagar PM, Johnston D, McMahon MJ, Dixon MF, Quirke P. Significance of circumferential resection margin involvement after oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg. 1993;80:1386–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Mapstone N. Minimum dataset for oesophageal carcinoma histopathology reports. London: Royal College of Pathologists; 1998.
23.
Griffiths EA, Brummell Z, Gorthi G, Pritchard SA, Welch IM. The prognostic value of circumferential resection margin involvement in oesophageal malignancy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32:413–9.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Altorki NK, Skinner DB. En bloc esophagectomy: the first 100 patients. HePatogastroenterology. 1990;37:360–3.PubMed
25.
Altorki NK, Girardi L, Skinner DB. En bloc esophagectomy improves survival for stage III esophageal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997;114:948–55.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Peyre CG, Hagen JA, DeMeester SR, et al. The number of lymph nodes removed predicts survival in esophageal cancer: an international study on the impact of extent of surgical resection. Ann Surg. 2008;248:549–5.CrossRef
27.
Rizzetto C, DeMeester SR, Hagen JA, Peyre CG, Lipham JC, DeMeester TR. En bloc esophagectomy reduces local recurrence and improves survival compared with transhiatal resection after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:1228–36.PubMedCrossRef
28.
van de Ven C, De Leyn P, Coosemans W, Van Raemdonck D, Lerut T. Three-field lymphadenectomy and pattern of lymph node spread in T3 adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus and the gastro-esophageal junction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;15:769–73.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Lerut T, Coosemans W, De Leyn P, et al. Reflections on three field lymphadenectomy in carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. HePatogastroenterology. 1999;46:717–25.PubMed
30.
Harvin JA, Lahat G, Correa AM, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma: significance of microscopically positive circumferential radial margins. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:412–20.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Verhage RJ, Zandvoort HJ, ten Kate FJ, van Hillegersberg R. How to define a positive circumferential resection margin in T3 adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:919–26.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Khan OA, Fitzgerald JJ, Soomro I, Beggs FD, Morgan WE, Duffy JP. Prognostic significance of circumferential resection margin involvement following oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:1549–52.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Chao YK, Yeh CJ, Chang HK, et al. Impact of circumferential resection margin distance on locoregional recurrence and survival after chemoradiotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:529–34.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Sujendran V, Wheeler J, Baron R, Warren BF, Maynard N. Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on circumferential margin positivity and its impact on prognosis in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2008;95:191–4.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Mulligan ED, Dunne B, Griffin M, Keeling N, Reynolds JV. Margin involvement and outcome in oesophageal carcinoma: a 10-year experience in a specialist unit. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:313–7.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Scheepers JJ, van der Peet DL, Veenhof AA, Cuesta MA. Influence of circumferential resection margin on prognosis in distal esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer approached through the transhiatal route. Dis EsoPhagus. 2009;22:42–8.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Rao VS, Yeung MM, Cooke J, Salim E, Jain PK. Comparison of circumferential resection margin clearance criteria with survival after surgery for cancer of esophagus. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:745–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Lack of Independent Significance of a Close (<1 mm) Circumferential Resection Margin Involvement in Esophageal and Junctional Cancer
Authors
N. J. O’Farrell, MB BCh
C. L. Donohoe, MB BCh
C. Muldoon, MB FRCPath
J. M. Costelloe, MB BCh
S. King, BSc
N. Ravi, MD, FRCSI
J. V. Reynolds, MD, FRCSI
Publication date
01-08-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 8/2013
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-2899-4

Other articles of this Issue 8/2013

Annals of Surgical Oncology 8/2013 Go to the issue

Hepatobiliary Tumors

Perioperative complications influence recurrence and survival after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

Colorectal Cancer

Oncologic Outcomes and Perioperative Clinicopathologic Results after Robot-assisted Tumor-specific Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Colorectal Cancer

Postoperative Complications and Oncologic Outcomes after Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases: The Importance of Staying on Track

Hepatobiliary Tumors

P16 Hypermethylation Predicts Surgical Outcome Following Curative Resection of Mid/Distal Bile Duct Cancer

Hepatobiliary Tumors

POSSUM and P-POSSUM as Predictors of Postoperative Morbidity and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Hepato-biliary-pancreatic Surgery: A Meta-analysis