The adequacy of the distal resection margin after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer

The Impact of Narrow and Infiltrated Distal Margin After Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer on Patients' Outcomes: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rectal cancer is a common tumor within a difficult anatomic constraint. Total mesorectal excision with longitudinal and circumferential free margins is considered imperative for good prognosis. In this article, the authors systematically reviewed all published literature with specific Mesh terms until the end of year 2019. Thereafter, retrieved articles were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and meta-analysis was conducted comparing local recurrence among 1-cm, 5-mm, and narrow (< 1-mm)/infiltrated margins. Thirty-nine articles were included in the study. Macroscopic distal margin < 1 cm carried a higher incidence of recurrence for those who did not receive neoadjuvant radiation, without affecting neither estimated overall nor disease-free survival. Less than 5-mm margin after radiation therapy is accepted oncologically. Infiltrated margins and narrow margins (< 1 mm) microscopically are associated with higher incidence of local recurrence and shorter overall and disease-free survival. Surgeons should aim at 1-cm safety margin in radiotherapy-naïve patients and microscopic free margin > 1 mm for those who received neoadjuvant therapy. The cost/benefit of reoperation for patients with infiltrated margins is still inadequately studied.

Long-term oncological outcomes of the sphincter preserving total mesorectal excision with varying distal resection margins

INTRODUCTION

A subcentimeter distal resection margin (DRM) appears to be acceptable for most patients, however, long-term follow up and specific subsets where DRM would influence recurrences have not been adequately investigated.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all sphincter-preserving resections for mid and low rectal cancers between July 2011 and May 2015 was performed. Extended total mesorectal excisions (TME) and patients with positive pathologic circumferential margins (CRM) were excluded.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-six patients fit the inclusion criteria. DRM > 20 mm was obtained in 117 patients (49.6%), between 10 and 20 mm in 78 (33%) and <10 mm in 41 (17.4%) patients. Pathological DRM was positive in 4 patients (1.7%). Sixty-five recurrences occurred at a median follow up of 78.5 months. DRM did not influence any of the oncological outcomes. In a subset analysis of patients with poor pathological response to neoadjuvant radiation, that is, tumor regression grade > 3, DRM influenced disease-free survival (DFS) but not overall survival with a hazard ratio of 4.4 (p = 0.02). This was confirmed on multivariate regression analysis in this subgroup as well where pathological nodal status and DRM < 10 mm were independent predictors of DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

A subcentimeter DRM may be acceptable in most patients except those who have an inadequate response to neoadjuvant radiation.

Impact of Length of Distal Margin on Outcomes Following Sphincter Preserving Surgery for Middle and Lower Third Rectal Cancers

Outcomes of sphincter preserving surgery for distal rectal cancers improve with clear circumferential resection and distal resection margin. However, the extent of distal resection margin after a complete mesorectal excision is often a cause for debate. We evaluated the outcome of middle and lower third rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter preservation with variable distal resection margin at our center. Patients with biopsy-proven rectal adenocarcinoma within 10 cm from anal verge undergoing sphincter preserving resections were included. Patients with positive circumferential resection margin were excluded. Patients were divided into three groups based on the extent of distal resection margin (< 6 mm, 6-10 mm, > 10 mm) and oncological outcomes were compared. The median age of 242 patients was 50 years and 44 (18.2%) were high-grade tumors. Preoperative chemoradiation was used in 185 (75.2%) patients. Median distal resection margin was 20 mm. Patients in < 10 mm group had a significantly higher proportion of lower third (68.3% vs 39.8%, p = 0.004) and chemoradiation-treated tumors (85.4 vs 74.6%, p = 0.001). A significantly higher percentage required an intersphincteric resection in the < 10 mm group (53.7% vs 14.4%, p = 0.0001). Significantly higher percentage tumors were pT3 in > 10 mm group (45.3% vs. 31.7%) (p = 0.05). The median follow-up was 23 months. There was no difference in the overall, loco-regional, and distant recurrence rates between the three groups. A subcentimeter distal resection margin does not influence loco-regional or distant recurrence rates following sphincter preserving surgery for middle and lower third rectal adenocarcinoma.

Continuous Effect of Radial Resection Margin on Recurrence and Survival in Rectal Cancer Patients Who Receive Preoperative Chemoradiation and Curative Surgery: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

PURPOSE

To elucidate the proper length and prognostic value of resection margins in rectal cancer patients who received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by curative total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 1476 rectal cancer patients staging cT3-4N0-2M0 were analyzed. All patients received radiation dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with concurrent 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. Total mesorectal excision was performed 4 to 8 weeks after radiation therapy.

RESULTS

The recurrence-free survival (RFS) at 5 years showed a significant difference between 3 groups: patients with circumferential resection margin (CRM) ≤1 mm, CRM 1.1 to 5 mm, and CRM >5 mm (46.2% vs 68.6% vs 77.5%, P<.001). Patients with CRM ≤1 mm showed a significantly higher cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence (P<.001) and distant metastasis (P<.001) at 5 years compared with the other 2 groups. Patients with CRM 1.1 to 5 mm showed a significantly higher cumulative incidence of distant metastasis (P<.001), but not locoregional recurrence (P=.192), compared with those with CRM >5 mm. Distal resection margin (≤5 vs >5 mm) did not show any significant difference in cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence (P=.310) and distant metastasis (P=.926).

CONCLUSION

Rectal cancer patients with CRM ≤1 mm are a high-risk group, with the lowest RFS. Patients with CRM 1.1 to 5 mm may be at intermediate risk, with moderately increased distant recurrence. Distal resection margin was not significantly associated with RFS in rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT and total mesorectal excision.