» Articles » PMID: 32346644

Prognostic Impact of the Length of the Distal Resection Margin in Rectosigmoid Cancer: An Analysis of the JSCCR Database Between 1995 and 2004

Overview
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2020 Apr 30
PMID 32346644
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: The necessary and sufficient length of the distal resection margin (l-DRM) for rectosigmoid cancer remains controversial. This study evaluated the validity of the 3-cm l-DRM rule for rectosigmoid cancer in the Japanese classification of colorectal cancer.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,443 patients with cT3 and cT4 rectosigmoid cancer who underwent R0 resection in Japanese institutions between 1995 and 2004. We identified the optimal cutoff point of the l-DRM affecting overall survival (OS) rate using a multivariate Cox regression analysis model. Using this cutoff point, the patients were divided into two groups after balancing the potential confounding factors of the l-DRM using propensity score matching, and the OS rates of the two groups were compared.

Results: A multivariate Cox regression analysis model revealed that the l-DRM of 4 cm was the best cutoff point with the greatest impact on OS rate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.84; P = 0.0452) and with the lowest Akaike information criterion value. In the matched cohort study, the OS rate of patients who had l-DRM of 4 cm or more was significantly higher than that of patients who had l-DRM < 4 cm (n = 402; 5-year OS rates, 87.6% vs. 80.3%, respectively; HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.09-2.31; P = 0.0136).

Conclusions: For cT3 and cT4 rectosigmoid cancer, l-DRM of 4 cm may be an appropriate landmark for a curative intent surgery, and we were unable to definitively confirm the validity of the Japanese 3-cm l-DRM rule.

Citing Articles

Effectiveness of fluorescence-guided methods using near-infrared fluorescent clips of robotic colorectal surgery: a case report.

Narihiro S, Nakashima S, Kazi M, Yoshioka S, Kitagawa K, Toya N Surg Case Rep. 2023; 9(1):81.

PMID: 37195361 PMC: 10192507. DOI: 10.1186/s40792-023-01666-z.


Considerable practice variation in use of pathological high-risk T1-CRC criteria: Why, and how to do better?.

Pioche M, Saito Y Endosc Int Open. 2020; 8(10):E1502-E1503.

PMID: 33043120 PMC: 7541179. DOI: 10.1055/a-1243-0129.

References
1.
McDermott F, Hughes E, Pihl E, Johnson W, Price A . Local recurrence after potentially curative resection for rectal cancer in a series of 1008 patients. Br J Surg. 1985; 72(1):34-7. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800720115. View

2.
Morikawa E, Yasutomi M, Shindou K, Matsuda T, Mori N, Hida J . Distribution of metastatic lymph nodes in colorectal cancer by the modified clearing method. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994; 37(3):219-23. DOI: 10.1007/BF02048158. View

3.
Williams N, Dixon M, Johnston D . Reappraisal of the 5 centimetre rule of distal excision for carcinoma of the rectum: a study of distal intramural spread and of patients' survival. Br J Surg. 1983; 70(3):150-4. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.1800700305. View

4.
Wolmark N, Fisher B . An analysis of survival and treatment failure following abdominoperineal and sphincter-saving resection in Dukes' B and C rectal carcinoma. A report of the NSABP clinical trials. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project. Ann Surg. 1986; 204(4):480-9. PMC: 1251324. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-198610000-00016. View

5.
Heald R, Ryall R . Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet. 1986; 1(8496):1479-82. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)91510-2. View