Minimum radial margin in pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer

The aim of this study was to clarify the suitable radial margin (RM) for favourable outcomes after pelvic exenteration (PE), focusing on the discrepancy between the concepts of circumferential resection margin (CRM) and traditional R status. Seventy-three patients with locally advanced (LARC, n = 24...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of surgical oncology 2022-12, Vol.48 (12), p.2502-2508
Hauptverfasser: Aiba, Toshisada, Uehara, Kay, Tsuyuki, Yuta, Ogura, Atsushi, Murata, Yuki, Mizuno, Takashi, Yamaguchi, Junpei, Kokuryo, Toshio, Yokoyama, Yukihiro, Ebata, Tomoki
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The aim of this study was to clarify the suitable radial margin (RM) for favourable outcomes after pelvic exenteration (PE), focusing on the discrepancy between the concepts of circumferential resection margin (CRM) and traditional R status. Seventy-three patients with locally advanced (LARC, n = 24) or locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC, n = 49) who underwent PE between 2006 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were histologically classified into the following 3 groups; wide RM (≥1 mm, n = 45), narrow RM (0–1 mm, n = 10), and exposed RM (n = 18). The analysis was performed not only in the entire cohort but also in each disease group separately. The rates of traditional R0 (RM > 0 mm) and wide RM were 75.3% and 61.6%, respectively, resulting in the discrepancy rate of 13.7% between the two concepts. Preoperative radiotherapy was given in 12.3%. In the entire cohort, the local recurrence and overall survival (OS) rates for narrow RMs were significantly worse than those for wide RMs (p 
ISSN:0748-7983
1532-2157
DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2022.06.015