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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kaneko H, Otsuka Y, Takagi S, et al. Hepatic resection using stapling devices. American journal of surgery. 2004;187:280–284.
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.
Acknowledgments
Georgios Antonios Margonis was supported by the Bodossaki Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
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
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Supplemental Table 1
(DOCX 23 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, J., Margonis, G.A., Amini, N. et al. The Prognostic Value of Varying Definitions of Positive Resection Margin in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases. J Gastrointest Surg 22, 1350–1357 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3748-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3748-3