•In resected buccal cancer, involved (<1 mm) margin is an independent predictor of LRFS.•Close (1–4 mm) margin is distinct from and has a better LRFS than involved margin.•Margin ≥ 2 mm has a LRFS ...similar to clear (≥5 mm) margin.•Margin ≥ 2 mm does not warrant adjuvant treatment in the absence of other adverse features.
To assess the prognostic importance of margin in resected buccal cancer within a framework of risk factor-driven postoperative adjuvant treatment.
Consecutive, treatment naïve patients undergoing primary surgical treatment for buccal cancer. Margin was defined as clear (≥5 mm), close (1–4 mm) and involved (<1 mm). Main outcome was association of margin with local recurrence free survival (LRFS). Subgroup analysis of close margin was performed according to receipt or no receipt of adjuvant treatment. A numerical margin cut-off in mm that could independently predict LRFS was sought to be identified.
Of the 167 patients included, the frequency of clear, close and involved margins was 50 (30 %), 78 (47 %) and 39 (23 %) respectively, among whom 52 %, 44 % and 98 % received postoperative adjuvant treatment respectively. Clear and close margins had similar 3-year LRFS (89 % and 96 % respectively), while involved margin had worse 3-year LRFS at 65 %. Involved margin was confirmed to be strongly and independently associated with worse LRFS. Within close margin, receipt and no receipt of adjuvant treatment had similar 3-year LRFS (92 % and 100 % respectively). A margin cut-off of 2 mm was identified at or above which LRFS approximated that of clear margin.
This single center cohort study of patients with resected buccal cancer suggests that close margin is distinct from and has a better LRFS than involved margin. A subset of close margin, with margin size ≥ 2 mm and no other adverse features, might be spared adjuvant treatment without compromising outcomes.
ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or ...dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.
Objective
This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of the minimal proximal resection margin (PRM) in total gastrectomy (TG) for Siewert II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).
...Methods
This study finally included 178 Siewert II advanced AEG patients who underwent TG from January 2017 to September 2020. According to the PRM length, patients were divided into 20-25 mm group and 30-35 mm group. Intraoperative, short-, and long-term postoperative outcomes were compared between two groups.
Results
The PRM of the 20-25 mm group had significantly less operation time compared with the PRM of the 30-35 mm group (P < .001), but the amount of blood loss, management of the diaphragmatic crura, and the incidence of positive resection margin were not significantly different between two groups (P > .05). In short-term postoperative outcomes, first gas-passing time, gastric-tube removal time, start time of diet, hospitalization, postoperative complications, and body weight loss were similar between two groups (P > .05). During the follow-up, the 3-year overall survival rates and the recurrence rates were not significantly different between the PRM of 20-25 mm and 30-35 mm groups (81.2% vs 83.5%, P = .695; 18.8% vs 15.5%, P = .812, respectively).
Conclusion
With less operation time and more preserved esophagus, the minimal PRM length of 20-25 mm could be an appropriate option in TG for patients with Siewert II advanced AEG.
The optimal mode of surgery for ground-glass opacity dominant peripheral lung cancer defined with thoracic thin-section computed tomography remains unknown.
We conducted a single-arm confirmatory ...trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublobar resection for ground-glass opacity dominant peripheral lung cancer. Lung cancer with maximum tumor diameter 2.0 cm or less and with consolidation tumor ratio 0.25 or less based on thin-section computed tomography were registered. The primary end point was 5-year relapse-free survival. The planned sample size was 330 with the expected 5-year relapse-free survival of 98%, threshold of 95%, 1-sided α of 5%, and power of 90%. The trial is registered with University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, number University Hospital Medical Information Network 000002008.
Between May 2009 and April 2011, 333 patients were enrolled from 51 institutions. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 56-68), and 109 were smokers. Median maximum tumor diameter was 1.20 cm (1.00-1.54). Median maximum tumor diameter of consolidation was 0 (0.00-0.20). The primary end point, 5-year relapse-free survival, was estimated on 314 patients who underwent sublobar resection. Operative modes were 258 wide wedge resections and 56 segmentectomies. Median pathological surgical margin was 15 mm (0-55). The 5-year relapse-free survival was 99.7% (90% confidence interval, 98.3-99.9), which met the primary end point. There was no local relapse. Grade 3 or higher postoperative complications based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effect v3.0 were observed in 17 patients (5.4%), without any grade 4 or 5.
Sublobar resection with enough surgical margin offered sufficient local control and relapse-free survival for lung cancer clinically resectable N0 staged by computed tomography with 3 or fewer peripheral lesions 2.0 cm or less amenable to sublobar resection and with a consolidation tumor ratio of 0.25 or less.
Display omitted
Purpose
Controversy exists regarding the optimal negative margin width for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast irradiation.
Methods
A ...multidisciplinary consensus panel used a meta-analysis of margin width and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) from a systematic review of 20 studies including 7,883 patients and other published literature as the evidence base for consensus.
Results
Negative margins halve the risk of IBTR compared with positive margins defined as ink on DCIS. A 2-mm margin minimizes the risk of IBTR compared with smaller negative margins. More widely clear margins do not significantly decrease IBTR compared with 2-mm margins. Negative margins narrower than 2 mm alone are not an indication for mastectomy, and factors known to affect rates of IBTR should be considered in determining the need for re-excision.
Conclusion
Use of a 2-mm margin as the standard for an adequate margin in DCIS treated with whole-breast irradiation is associated with lower rates of IBTR and has the potential to decrease re-excision rates, improve cosmetic outcomes, and decrease health care costs. Clinical judgment should be used in determining the need for further surgery in patients with negative margins narrower than 2 mm.
The role of surgical margins in chondrosarcoma Stevenson, Jonathan D.; Laitinen, Minna K.; Parry, Michael C. ...
European journal of surgical oncology,
September 2018, 2018-09-00, 20180901, Volume:
44, Issue:
9
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Chondrosarcoma (CS) is the second most common primary bone sarcoma with no clear role for adjuvant therapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate (1) the relationship between surgical excision ...margins and local recurrence free survival (LRFS), and (2) the role of local recurrence (LR) in disease specific survival (DSS) in CS of the extremity and pelvis.
341 pelvic and extremity CS diagnosed between 2003 and 2015 were studied retrospectively.
LR developed in 23% of cases. Pelvic location, pathologic fracture, margin and grade were significant factors for LR after univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed surgical margin and pelvic location as positive factors for LR, and grade-1 and 2 CS as negative factors for LR. Pathologic fracture, central versus peripheral, grade, and LR were significant factors with univariate analysis for DSS; and grade was significant after multivariate analysis for all patients for DSS. After competing risk analysis, LR was statistically significant for DSS in grade-2 and grade-3 tumors.
Surgical margins determine LR in all CS grades, but LR affects DSS only in grade-2 and grade-3 tumors. Although narrow margins are acceptable in grade-1 tumors, since biopsy is unreliable in predicting final grade, a minimum 4-mm margin should be the aim in all cases.
We summarize published data on associations between cavernous neurovascular bundle preservation (nerve sparing) during prostatectomy and positive surgical margins, erectile function, urinary function ...and other patient reported outcomes.
A systematic literature search of MEDLINE®, Embase® and Cochrane Reviews databases was performed for interventional or observational studies published between 2000 and 2014. English language articles that compared clinical outcomes of patients undergoing nerve sparing and nonnerve sparing radical prostatectomy were included. Meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled relative risk estimates for positive surgical margins, erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence in nerve sparing and nonnerve sparing groups. Sensitivity analyses compared outcomes among unilateral and bilateral nerve sparing vs nonnerve sparing groups.
Of the 1,883 articles identified, 124 studies (73,448 patients) were included in the analysis. Nerve sparing did not increase the risk of positive surgical margins in patients with pT2 (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75–1.13) or pT3 disease (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71–0.96), potentially due to appropriate patient selection. The risk of incontinence was lower in nerve sparing cases (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.85 and RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44–0.84) at 3 and 12 months, respectively. The relative risk of erectile dysfunction with nerve sparing was 0.77 (95% CI 0.70–0.85) at 3 months and 0.53 (95% CI 0.39–0.71) at 12 months. Subgroup analyses of unilateral and bilateral nerve sparing approaches demonstrated similar results.
Among cohort studies nerve sparing was not associated with worse cancer outcomes. Nerve sparing is associated with better urinary and erectile function. These results should be interpreted with caution given the potential for selection bias and unadjusted confounding factors.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of elective rectal resection for rectal cancer in adults by robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.
...Technological advantages of robotic surgery favor precise dissection in narrow spaces. However, the evidence base driving recommendations for the use of robotic surgery in rectal cancer primarily hinges on observational data.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (until August 2016) comparing robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Data on the following endpoints were evaluated: circumferential margin status, mesorectal grade, number of lymph nodes harvested, rate of conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, and operative time. Data were summarized as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods.
Five trials were eligible, including 334 robotic and 337 laparoscopic surgery cases. Meta-analysis showed that RS was associated with lower conversion rate (7.3%; 4 studies, 544 participants, RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.97, P = 0.04, I = 0%) and longer operating time (MD 38.43 minutes, 95% CI 31.84-45.01: P < 0.00001) compared with laparoscopic surgery. Perioperative mortality, rate of circumferential margin involvement (2 studies, 489 participants, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.39-1.73), and lymph nodes collected (mean 17.4 Lymph Nodes; 5 trials, 674 patients, MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.12) were similar. The quality of the evidence was moderate for most outcomes.
Evidence of moderate quality supports that robotic surgery for rectal cancer produces similar perioperative outcomes of oncologic procedure adequacy to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery portraits lower rate of conversion to open surgery, while operating time is significantly longer than by laparoscopic approach.
Background
The prognosis of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is poor and selection of patients for surgery is challenging. This study examined the impact of a positive resection ...margin (R1) on locoregional recurrence (LRR) and overall survival (OS); and also aimed to identified tumour characteristics and/or technical factors associated with a positive resection margin in patients with PDAC.
Methods
Patients scheduled for pancreatic resection for PDAC between 2006 and 2016 were identified from an institutional database. The effect of resection margin status, patient characteristics and tumour characteristics on LRR, distant metastasis and OS was assessed.
Results
A total of 322 patients underwent pancreatectomy for PDAC. A positive resection (R1) margin was found in 129 patients (40·1 per cent); this was associated with decreased OS compared with that in patients with an R0 margin (median 15 (95 per cent c.i. 13 to 17) versus 22 months; P < 0·001). R1 status was associated with reduced time to LRR (median 16 versus 36 (not estimated, n.e.) months; P = 0·002). Disease recurrence patterns were similar in the R1 and R0 groups. Risk factors for early recurrence were tumour stage, positive lymph nodes (N1) and perineural invasion. Among 100 patients with N0 disease, R1 status was associated with shorter OS compared with R0 resection (median 17 (10 to 24) versus 45 (n.e.) months; P = 0·002), whereas R status was not related to OS in 222 patients with N1 disease (median 14 (12 to 16) versus 17 (15 to 19) months after R1 and R0 resection respectively; P = 0·068).
Conclusion
Although pancreatic resection with a positive margin was associated with poor survival and early recurrence, particularly in patients with N1 disease, disease recurrence patterns were similar between R1 and R0 groups.
In pancreatic cancer surgery, R1 status is determined largely by tumour characteristics. Although R1 resection is a major contributor to reduced survival and early recurrence, overall recurrence patterns are similar after R0 and R1 resections. Finally, in patients with N0 disease, surgical factors affect R1 status.
Tumour biology important
PDF
