Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1315–1322 | Cite as

Variations in Pelvic Dimensions Do Not Predict the Risk of Circumferential Resection Margin (CRM) Involvement in Rectal Cancer

  • G. SalernoEmail author
  • I. R. Daniels
  • G. Brown
  • A. R. Norman
  • B. J. Moran
  • R. J. Heald
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The objective of this study was to assess the value of preoperative pelvimetry, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in predicting the risk of an involved circumferential resection margin (CRM) in a group of patients with operable rectal cancer.

Methods

A cohort of 186 patients from the MERCURY study was selected. These patients’ histological CRM status was compared against 14 pelvimetry parameters measured from the preoperative MRI. These measurements were taken by one of the investigators (G.S.), who was blinded to the final CRM status.

Results

There was no correlation between the pelvimetry and the CRM status. However, there was a difference in the height of the rectal cancer and the positive CRM rate (p = 0.011). Of 61 patients with low rectal cancer, 10 had positive CRM at histology (16.4% with CI 8.2%–22.1%) compared with 5 of 110 patients with mid/upper rectal cancers (4.5% with CI 0.7%–8.4%).

Conclusions

Magnetic resonance imaging can predict clear margins in most cases of rectal cancer. Circumferential resection margin positivity cannot be predicted from pelvimetry in patients with rectal cancer selected for curative surgery. The only predictive factor for a positive CRM in the patients studied was tumor height.

Keywords

Rectal Cancer Total Mesorectal Excision Anal Verge Circumferential Resection Margin Cephalopelvic Disproportion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the assistance in the interpretation of the MRI scans from Dr. Gina Brown; to measurements Mr. Ian Daniels and Mr. Brendan Moran for devising of the pelvimetry. They also acknowledge the statistical evaluation of this study by Dr. Andy Norman and the financial support of the Pelican Cancer Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Stark DD, McCarthy SM, Filly RA, et al. (1985) Pelvimetry by magnetic resonance imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 144:947–950PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trousdale RT, Cabanela ME, Berry DJ, et al. (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetry before and after a periacetabular osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A:552–556PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buhre LM, Mulder NH, de Ruiter AJ, et al. (1994) Effect of extent of anterior resection and sex on disease-free survival and local recurrence in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 81:1227–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tague RG (1989) Variation in pelvic size between males and females. Am J Phys Anthropol 80:59–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, et al. (1986) Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet 2:996–999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown G, Richards CJ, Newcombe RG, et al. (1999) Rectal carcinoma: thin-section MR imaging for staging in 28 patients. Radiology 211:215–222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown G, Radcliffe AG, Newcombe RG, et al. (2003) Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in rectal cancer using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Surg 90:355–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown G, Daniels IR (2005) Preoperative staging of rectal cancer: the MERCURY research project. Recent Results Cancer Res 165:58–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Syse A, et al. (2004) Inadvertent perforation during rectal cancer resection in Norway. Br J Surg 91:210–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nagtegaal ID, Kranenbarg EK, Hermans J, et al. (2000) Pathology data in the central databases of multicenter randomized trials need to be based on pathology reports and controlled by trained quality managers. J Clin Oncol 18:1771–1779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Croxford MSG, Watson M, Heald R, et al. (2004) Colorectal 23–28. Br J Surg 91:63–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McDermott FT, Hughes ES, Pihl E, et al. (1985) Local recurrence after potentially curative resection for rectal cancer in a series of 1008 patients. Br J Surg 72:34–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boyle KM, Petty D, Chalmers AG, et al. (2005) MRI assessment of the bony pelvis may help predict resectability of rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 7:232–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boyle KM FP, Sagar PM, Burke D (2004) The relationship between mesorectal morphology and gender in patients with primary rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer Surg 30:1020Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boyle KMPD, Chalmers AG, Quirke P, et al. (2004) The relationship between pelvic morphology and involvement of the circumferential resection margin in surgery for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 6:12Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wibe A, Rendedal PR, Svensson E, et al. (2002) Prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 89:327–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martling AL, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, et al. (2000) Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm. Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Basingstoke Bowel Cancer Research Project. Lancet 356:93–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CA, Kranenbarg EK, et al. (2002) Circumferential margin involvement is still an important predictor of local recurrence in rectal carcinoma: not one millimeter but two millimeters is the limit. Am J Surg Pathol 26:350–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, et al. (2005) Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol 23:9257–9264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown G (2004) Local radiological staging of rectal cancer. Clin Radiol 59:213–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Salerno
    • 1
    Email author
  • I. R. Daniels
    • 1
  • G. Brown
    • 2
  • A. R. Norman
    • 3
  • B. J. Moran
    • 1
  • R. J. Heald
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Colorectal ResearchPelican Cancer Foundation, North Hampshire HospitalBasingstokeUK
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyRoyal Marsden HospitalSuttonUK
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsRoyal Marsden HospitalSuttonUK

Personalised recommendations