Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 1350–1357 | Cite as

The Prognostic Value of Varying Definitions of Positive Resection Margin in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases

  • Jane Wang
  • Georgios Antonios Margonis
  • Neda Amini
  • Nikolaos Andreatos
  • Chunhui Yuan
  • Christos Damaskos
  • Efstathios Antoniou
  • Nikolaos Garmpis
  • Stefan Buettner
  • Carlotta Barbon
  • Amar Deshwar
  • Jin He
  • Richard Burkhart
  • Timothy M. Pawlik
  • Christopher L. Wolfgang
  • Matthew J. Weiss
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Varying definitions of resection margin clearance are currently employed among patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM). Specifically, a microscopically positive margin (R1) has alternatively been equated with an involved margin (margin width = 0 mm) or a margin width < 1 mm. Consequently, patients with a margin width of 0–1 mm (sub-mm) are inconsistently classified in either the R0 or R1 categories, thus obscuring the prognostic implications of sub-mm margins.

Methods

Six hundred thirty-three patients who underwent resection of CRLM were identified. Both R1 definitions were alternatively employed and multivariable analysis was used to determine the predictive power of each definition, as well as the prognostic implications of a sub-mm margin.

Results

Five hundred thirty-nine (85.2%) patients had a margin width ≥ 1 mm, 42 had a sub-mm margin width, and 52 had an involved margin (0 mm). A margin width ≥ 1 mm was associated with improved survival vs. a sub-mm margin (65 vs. 36 months; P = 0.03) or an involved margin (65 vs. 33 months; P < 0.001). No significant difference in survival was detected between patients with involved vs. sub-mm margins (P = 0.31). A sub-mm margin and an involved margin were both independent predictors of worse OS (HR 1.66, 1.04–2.67; P = 0.04, and HR 2.14, 1.46–3.16; P < 0.001, respectively) in multivariable analysis. Importantly, after combining the two definitions, patients with either an involved margin or a sub-mm margin were associated with worse OS in multivariable analysis (HR 1.94, 1.41–2.65; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Patients with involved or sub-mm margins demonstrated a similar inferior OS vs. patients with a margin width > 1 mm. Consequently, a uniform definition of R1 as a margin width < 1 mm should perhaps be employed by future studies.

Keywords

CRLM Resection margin Margin definition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Georgios Antonios Margonis was supported by the Bodossaki Foundation.

Author Contribution

All researchers were ultimately involved and each named author has made a significant contribution.

Specifically:

Jane Wang: conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Georgios Antonios Margonis: conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Neda Amini: conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Nikolaos Andreatos: interpretation of data, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Chunhui Yuan: interpretation of data, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Christos Damaskos: design, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Efstathios Antoniou: design, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Nikolaos Garmpis: design, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Stefan Buettner: design, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Carlotta Barbon: design, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Amar Deshwar: interpretation of data, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Jin He: interpretation of data, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Richard Burkhart: interpretation of data, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Timothy M. Pawlik: interpretation of data, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Christopher L. Wolfgang: conception and design, interpretation of data, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Matthew J. Weiss: conception and design, interpretation of data, critically revising the article, final approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institute.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

11605_2018_3748_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Supplemental Table 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Liu W, Sun Y, Zhang L, et al. Negative surgical margin improved long-term survival of colorectal cancer liver metastases after hepatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of colorectal disease. 2015;30:1365–1373.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ekberg H, Tranberg KG, Andersson R, et al. Determinants of survival in liver resection for colorectal secondaries. The British journal of surgery. 1986;73:727–731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wakai T, Shirai Y, Sakata J, et al. Appraisal of 1 cm hepatectomy margins for intrahepatic micrometastases in patients with colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis. Annals of surgical oncology. 2008;15:2472–2481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dhir M, Lyden ER, Wang A, et al. Influence of margins on overall survival after hepatic resection for colorectal metastasis: a meta-analysis. Annals of surgery. 2011;254:234–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pawlik TM, Scoggins CR, Zorzi D, et al. Effect of surgical margin status on survival and site of recurrence after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Annals of surgery. 2005;241:715–722, discussion 722-714.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eveno C, Karoui M, Gayat E, et al. Liver resection for colorectal liver metastases with peri-operative chemotherapy: oncological results of R1 resections. HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association. 2013;15:359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andreou A, Aloia TA, Brouquet A, et al. Margin status remains an important determinant of survival after surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases in the era of modern chemotherapy. Annals of surgery. 2013;257:1079–1088.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sadot E, Groot Koerkamp B, Leal JN, et al. Resection margin and survival in 2368 patients undergoing hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: surgical technique or biologic surrogate? Annals of surgery. 2015;262:476–485; discussion 483-475.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Figueras J, Burdio F, Ramos E, et al. Effect of subcentimeter nonpositive resection margin on hepatic recurrence in patients undergoing hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. Evidences from 663 liver resections. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2007;18:1190–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Ardito F, et al. Influence of surgical margin on type of recurrence after liver resection for colorectal metastases: a single-center experience. Surgery. 2008;143:384–393.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ayez N, Lalmahomed ZS, Eggermont AM, et al. Outcome of microscopic incomplete resection (R1) of colorectal liver metastases in the era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Annals of surgical oncology. 2012;19:1618–1627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konopke R, Kersting S, Makowiec F, et al. Resection of colorectal liver metastases: is a resection margin of 3 mm enough? : a multicenter analysis of the GAST Study Group. World journal of surgery. 2008;32:2047–2056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herman P, Pinheiro RS, Mello ES, et al. Surgical margin size in hepatic resections for colorectal metastasis: impact on recurrence and survival. Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery. 2013;26:309–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomez D, Zaitoun AM, De Rosa A, et al. Critical review of the prognostic significance of pathological variables in patients undergoing resection for colorectal liver metastases. HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association. 2014;16:836–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wakai T, Shirai Y, Sakata J, et al. Histologic evaluation of intrahepatic micrometastases in patients treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis. International journal of clinical and experimental pathology. 2012;5:308–314.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sasaki K, Margonis GA, Andreatos N, et al. Prognostic impact of margin status in liver resections for colorectal metastases after bevacizumab. The British journal of surgery. 2017.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Di Carlo S, Yeung D, Mills J, et al. Resection margin influences the outcome of patients with bilobar colorectal liver metastases. World journal of hepatology. 2016;8:1502–1510.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giuliante F, Ardito F, Vellone M, et al. Role of the surgeon as a variable in long-term survival after liver resection for colorectal metastases. Journal of surgical oncology. 2009;100:538–545.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cady B, Jenkins RL, Steele GD, Jr., et al. Surgical margin in hepatic resection for colorectal metastasis: a critical and improvable determinant of outcome. Annals of surgery. 1998;227:566–571.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pandanaboyana S, White A, Pathak S, et al. Impact of margin status and neoadjuvant chemotherapy on survival, recurrence after liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis. Annals of surgical oncology. 2015;22:173–179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muratore A, Ribero D, Zimmitti G, et al. Resection margin and recurrence-free survival after liver resection of colorectal metastases. Annals of surgical oncology. 2010;17:1324–1329.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Angelsen JH, Horn A, Eide GE, et al. Surgery for colorectal liver metastases: the impact of resection margins on recurrence and overall survival. World journal of surgical oncology. 2014;12:127.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Truant S, Sequier C, Leteurtre E, et al. Tumour biology of colorectal liver metastasis is a more important factor in survival than surgical margin clearance in the era of modern chemotherapy regimens. HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association. 2015;17:176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Haas RJ, Wicherts DA, Flores E, et al. R1 resection by necessity for colorectal liver metastases: is it still a contraindication to surgery? Annals of surgery. 2008;248:626–637.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European journal of cancer. 2009;45:228–247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Margonis GA, Spolverato G, Kim Y, et al. Intraoperative surgical margin re-resection for colorectal liver metastasis: is it worth the effort? Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. 2015;19:699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tranchart H, Chirica M, Faron M, et al. Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins after resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases: reappraisal in the era of modern chemotherapy. World journal of surgery. 2013;37:2647–2654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laurent C, Adam JP, Denost Q, et al. Significance of R1 Resection for Advanced Colorectal Liver Metastases in the Era of Modern Effective Chemotherapy. World journal of surgery. 2016;40:1191–1199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lafaro K, Grandhi MS, Herman JM, et al. The importance of surgical margins in primary malignancies of the liver. Journal of surgical oncology. 2016;113:296–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bhutiani N, Philips P, Martin RC, 2nd, et al. Impact of surgical margin clearance for resection of secondary hepatic malignancies. Journal of surgical oncology. 2016;113:289–295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Margonis GA, Sasaki K, Andreatos N, et al. KRAS Mutation Status Dictates Optimal Surgical Margin Width in Patients Undergoing Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Annals of surgical oncology. 2017;24:264–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Margonis GA, Sasaki K, Kim Y, et al. Tumor Biology Rather Than Surgical Technique Dictates Prognosis in Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases. Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. 2016;20:1821–1829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaneko H, Otsuka Y, Takagi S, et al. Hepatic resection using stapling devices. American journal of surgery. 2004;187:280–284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kianmanesh R, Ogata S, Paradis V, et al. Heat-zone effect after surface application of dissecting sealer on the "in situ margin" after tumorectomy for liver tumors. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2008;206:1122–1128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Wang
    • 1
  • Georgios Antonios Margonis
    • 1
  • Neda Amini
    • 1
  • Nikolaos Andreatos
    • 1
  • Chunhui Yuan
    • 1
  • Christos Damaskos
    • 2
  • Efstathios Antoniou
    • 2
  • Nikolaos Garmpis
    • 2
  • Stefan Buettner
    • 1
  • Carlotta Barbon
    • 1
  • Amar Deshwar
    • 1
  • Jin He
    • 1
  • Richard Burkhart
    • 1
  • Timothy M. Pawlik
    • 1
  • Christopher L. Wolfgang
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Weiss
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryThe Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Second Department of Propedeutic Surgery, “Laiko” General Hospital, Medical SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  3. 3.Pancreas Cancer Multidisciplinary Clinic, Liver Cancer Multidisciplinary Clinic, Surgical Oncology FellowshipJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations