Advertisement

What Is the Prognostic Value of CRM Involvement?

  • Iris D. Nagtegaal
Chapter

Abstract

Last century, the major problem in the treatment of rectal cancer was the very high local recurrence rate after surgery. Local recurrence rates of 30–50% were common and resulted in a very poor quality of life and short survival of patients with rectal cancer. Treatment of these local recurrences is difficult and often mutilating. In 1986, the landmark paper by Phil Quirke and others [1] described that involvement of the radial surgical margin, or circumferential resection margin (CRM), was the main cause of local recurrence. This finding, together with the excellent clinical results by Bill Heald and others with a new surgical technique [2], total mesorectal excision (TME), caused a major change in the treatment and prognosis of rectal cancer patients.

References

  1. 1.
    Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS (1986) Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection. Histopathological study of lateral tumor spread and surgical excision. Lancet 2:996–999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heald RJ, Ryall RDH (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1:1479–1482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CAM, Nagtegaal ID et al (2001) Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. NEJM 345(9):638–646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nagtegaal ID, Marijnen CAM, Klein Kranenbarg E, van de Velde CJH, van Krieken JHJM (2002) Circumferential margin is still an important predictor of local recurrence in rectal carcinoma: not one mm but two mm is the limit. Am J Surg Pathol 26(3):350–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein TE, Endreseth BH, Romundstad P, Wibe A (2009) Circumferential resection margin as a prognostic factor in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96(11):1348–1357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ et al (2002) Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 235(4):449–457CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P (2008) What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer? J Clin Oncol 26(2):303–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ueno H, Mochizuki H, Shinto E, Hashiguchi Y, Hase K, Talbot IC (2002) Histologic indices in biopsy specimens for estimating the probability of extended local spread in patients with rectal carcinoma. Cancer 94(11):2882–2891CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nagtegaal ID, Van Krieken JH (2007) The multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer: pathology. Ann Oncol 18(Suppl 9):ix122–ix126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJH, van der Worp E, Kapiteijn E, Quirke P, van Krieken JHJM (2002) Macroscopic evaluation of rectal cancer resection specimen: clinical significance of the pathologist in quality control. J Clin Oncol 20(7):1729–1734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJH, Marijnen CAM, Van Krieken JH, Quirke P (2005) Low rectal cancer; a pathologists’ call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol 23:9257–9264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quirke P, Sebag-Montefiore D, Steele R et al (2006) Local recurrence after rectal cancer resection is strongly related to the plane of surgical dissection and is further reduced by preoperative short course radiotherapy. Preliminary results of the MRC CR07 trial. J Clin Oncol 24(18s):A3512Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bujko K, Nowacki MP, Nasierowska-Guttmejer A et al (2004) Sphincter preservation following preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: report of a randomised trial comparing short-term radiotherapy vs. conventionally fractionated radiochemotherapy. Radiother Oncologia 72(1):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bosset JF, Calais G, Mineur L et al (2005) Enhanced tumorocidal effect of chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: preliminary results--EORTC 22921. J Clin Oncol 23(24):5620–5627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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(3):327–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rullier E, Goffre B, Bonnel C, Zerbib F, Caudry M, Saric J (2001) Preoperative radiochemotherapy and sphincter-saving resection for T3 carcinomas of the lower third of the rectum. Ann Surg 234(5):633–640CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nagtegaal ID, Gosens MJ, Marijnen CA, Rutten HJ, van de Velde CJ, Van Krieken JH (2007) Combinations of tumor and treatment parameters are more discriminative for prognosis than the present TNM system in rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(13):1647–1650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gosens MJ, Van Krieken JH, Marijnen CA et al (2007) Improvement of staging by combining tumor and treatment parameters: the value for prognostication in rectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5(8):997–1003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations