Impact of Surgical Margin Width on Recurrence and Overall Survival Following R0 Hepatic Resection of Colorectal Metastases

Georgios Antonios Margonis(Johns Hopkins University), Theodoros Ν. Sergentanis(National and Kapodistrian University of Athens), Ioannis Ntanasis‐Stathopoulos(National and Kapodistrian University of Athens), Nikolaos Andreatos(Johns Hopkins University), Ioannis‐Georgios Tzanninis(National and Kapodistrian University of Athens), Kazunari Sasaki(Johns Hopkins University), Θεοδώρα Ψαλτοπούλου(National and Kapodistrian University of Athens), Jane Wang(Johns Hopkins University), Stefan Buettner(Johns Hopkins University), Αpostolos Papalois(Harvard University), Jin He(Johns Hopkins University), Christopher L. Wolfgang(Johns Hopkins University), Timothy M. Pawlik(The Ohio State University), Matthew J. Weiss(Johns Hopkins University)
Annals of Surgery
November 17, 2017
Cited by 148

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of surgical margin width on survival following R0 hepatic resection for colorectal metastases (CRLM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although negative resection margin is considered of paramount importance for the prognosis of patients with colorectal liver metastases, optimal resection margin width remains controversial. METHODS: Eligible studies examining the association between margin status after R0 hepatic resection for CRLM and survival, including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were sought using the Medline, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases. Random-effects models were used for the calculation of pooled relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were deemed eligible for inclusion representing a cohort of 11,147 hepatic resections. Wider resection margin (>1 vs <1 cm) was significantly associated with improved OS at 3 years (pooled RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.95), 5 years (pooled RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85-0.97), and 10 years (pooled RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00). Similarly, DFS was positively associated with >1 cm resection margin at 3, 5, and 10 years. Interestingly, >1 mm (vs <1 mm) resection margin was significantly associated with improved OS at all-time points. Meta-regression analyses did not reveal any significant modifying role of the study features under investigation, such as the administration of neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Importantly, our findings suggest that while a >1 mm margin is associated with better prognosis than a submillimeter margin, achieving a margin >1 cm may result in even better oncologic outcomes and should be considered if possible.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis