For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
2
views
48
references
 Top references
cited by
1
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      100
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prognostic impact of R1 resection margin in synchronous and simultaneous colorectal liver metastasis resection: a retrospective cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A margin ≥ 1 mm is considered a standard resection margin for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). However, microscopic incomplete resection (R1) is not rare since aggressive surgical resection has been attempted in multiple and bilobar CRLM. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of resection margins and perioperative chemotherapy in patients with CRLM.

          Methods

          A total of 368 of 371 patients who underwent simultaneous colorectal and liver resection for synchronous CRLM between 2006 and June 2017, excluding three R2 resections, were included in this study. R1 resection was defined as either abutting tumor on the resection line or involved margin in the pathological report. The patients were divided into R0 ( n = 304) and R1 ( n = 64) groups. The clinicopathological characteristics, overall survival, and intrahepatic recurrence-free survival were compared between the two groups using propensity score matching.

          Results

          The R1 group had more patients with ≥ 4 liver lesions (27.3 vs. 50.0%, P < 0.001), higher mean tumor burden score (4.4 vs. 5.8%, P = 0.003), and more bilobar disease (38.8 vs. 67.2%, P < 0.001) than the R0 group. Both R0 and R1 groups showed similar long-term outcomes in the total cohort (OS, P = 0.149; RFS, P = 0.414) and after matching (OS, P = 0.097, RFS: P = 0.924). However, the marginal recurrence rate was higher in the R1 group than in the R0 group (26.6 vs. 16.1%, P = 0.048). Furthermore, the resection margin did not have a significant impact on OS and RFS, regardless of preoperative chemotherapy. Poorly differentiated, N-positive stage colorectal cancer, liver lesion number ≥ 4, and size ≥ 5 cm were poor prognostic factors, and adjuvant chemotherapy had a positive impact on survival.

          Conclusions

          The R1 group was associated with aggressive tumor characteristics; however, no effect on the OS and intrahepatic RFS with or without preoperative chemotherapy was observed in this study. Tumor biological characteristics, rather than resection margin status, determine long-term prognosis. Therefore, aggressive surgical resection should be considered in patients with CRLM expected to undergo R1 resection in this multidisciplinary approach era.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-023-03042-5.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience.

          Pierre A. Clavien, Jeffrey Barkun, Michelle L. de Oliveira … (2009)
          The lack of consensus on how to define and grade adverse postoperative events has greatly hampered the evaluation of surgical procedures. A new classification of complications, initiated in 1992, was updated 5 years ago. It is based on the type of therapy needed to correct the complication. The principle of the classification was to be simple, reproducible, flexible, and applicable irrespective of the cultural background. The aim of the current study was to critically evaluate this classification from the perspective of its use in the literature, by assessing interobserver variability in grading complex complication scenarios and to correlate the classification grades with patients', nurses', and doctors' perception. Reports from the literature using the classification system were systematically analyzed. Next, 11 scenarios illustrating difficult cases were prepared to develop a consensus on how to rank the various complications. Third, 7 centers from different continents, having routinely used the classification, independently assessed the 11 scenarios. An agreement analysis was performed to test the accuracy and reliability of the classification. Finally, the perception of the severity was tested in patients, nurses, and physicians by presenting 30 scenarios, each illustrating a specific grade of complication. We noted a dramatic increase in the use of the classification in many fields of surgery. About half of the studies used the contracted form, whereas the rest used the full range of grading. Two-thirds of the publications avoided subjective terms such as minor or major complications. The study of 11 difficult cases among various centers revealed a high degree of agreement in identifying and ranking complications (89% agreement), and enabled a better definition of unclear situations. Each grade of complications significantly correlated with the perception by patients, nurses, and physicians (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis test). This 5-year evaluation provides strong evidence that the classification is valid and applicable worldwide in many fields of surgery. No modification in the general principle of classification is warranted in view of the use in ongoing publications and trials. Subjective, inaccurate, or confusing terms such as "minor or major" should be removed from the surgical literature.
          Article 0 comments Cited 1807 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Recurrence and outcomes following hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, and combined resection/ablation for colorectal liver metastases.

            Eddie K. Abdalla, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey, Lee Ellis … (2004)
            To examine recurrence and survival rates for patients treated with hepatic resection only, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) plus resection or RFA only for colorectal liver metastases. Thermal destruction techniques, particularly RFA, have been rapidly accepted into surgical practice in the last 5 years. Long-term survival data following treatment of colorectal liver metastasis using RFA with or without hepatic resection are lacking. Data from 358 consecutive patients with colorectal liver metastases treated for cure with hepatic resection +/- RFA and 70 patients found at laparotomy to have liver-only disease but not to be candidates for potentially curative treatment were compared (1992-2002). Of 418 patients treated, 190 (45%) underwent resection only, 101 RFA + resection (24%), 57 RFA only (14%), and 70 laparotomy with biopsy only or arterial infusion pump placement ("chemotherapy only," 17%). RFA was used in operative candidates who could not undergo complete resection of disease. Overall recurrence was most common after RFA (84% vs. 64% RFA + resection vs. 52% resection only, P < 0.001). Liver-only recurrence after RFA was fourfold the rate after resection (44% vs. 11% of patients, P < 0.001), and true local recurrence was most common after RFA (9% of patients vs. 5% RFA + resection vs. 2% resection only, P = 0.02). Overall survival rate was highest after resection (58% at 5 years); 4-year survival after resection, RFA + resection and RFA only were 65%, 36%, and 22%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Survival for "unresectable" patients treated with RFA + resection or RFA only was greater than chemotherapy only (P = 0.0017). Hepatic resection is the treatment of choice for colorectal liver metastases. RFA alone or in combination with resection for unresectable patients does not provide survival comparable to resection, and provides survival only slightly superior to nonsurgical treatment.
            Article 0 comments Cited 257 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. a personalized approach to clinical decision making.

              H.J. Schmoll, E Van Cutsem, A. Stein … (2012)
              Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.
              Article 0 comments Cited 184 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Gi Hong Choi: CHOIGH@yuhs.ac
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): World J Surg Oncol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): World J Surg Oncol
                Title: World Journal of Surgical Oncology
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1477-7819
                Publication date (Electronic): 7 June 2023
                Publication date PMC-release: 7 June 2023
                Publication date Collection: 2023
                Volume: 21
                Electronic Location Identifier: 169
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.15444.30, ISNI 0000 0004 0470 5454, Department of Surgery, Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, , Yonsei University College of Medicine, ; Seoul, Republic of Korea
                [2 ]GRID grid.415998.8, ISNI 0000 0004 0445 6726, Department of Surgery, Division of Hepato-Biliary Pancreatic Surgery, , King Saud Medical City, ; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                Article
                Publisher ID: 3042
                DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03042-5
                PMC ID: 10245648
                PubMed ID: 37280633
                SO-VID: 8b06a6b2-36e3-4cfb-9eef-b5ec1841ea63
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2023
                License:

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                Date received : 13 December 2022
                Date accepted : 19 May 2023
                Categories
                Subject: Research
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Surgery
                Keywords: colorectal cancer liver metastasis,r1 resection,long-term outcome,chemotherapy,prognostic factor
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Surgery
                Keywords: colorectal cancer liver metastasis, r1 resection, long-term outcome, chemotherapy, prognostic factor

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content100

                See all similar

                Cited by1

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors697

                See all reference authors