Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr;107(5):580-585.
doi: 10.1002/bjs.11478. Epub 2020 Mar 5.

Risk of local recurrence of rectal cancer and circumferential resection margin: population-based cohort study

E A Agger  1 , F H Jörgren  2 , M-L A Lydrup  1 , P L Buchwald  1
Affiliations

Risk of local recurrence of rectal cancer and circumferential resection margin: population-based cohort study

E A Agger et al. Br J Surg. 2020 Apr.

Abstract
in English, Spanish

Background: A circumferential resection margin (CRM) of 1·0 mm or less after rectal cancer surgery is thought to increase the risk of local recurrence (LR). This retrospective population-based study examined how CRM distance affects the LR risk.

Methods: Data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry were used in a retrospective analysis of rectal cancers resected between 2005 and 2013. The primary endpoint was LR.

Results: A total of 12 146 patients were identified, of whom 8392 were included in the analysis; 739 patients had a CRM of 1·0 mm or less and 7653 had a CRM larger than 1·0 mm. The mean follow-up time was 51 months. There were 66 LRs (8·9 per cent) in the group with a CRM of 1·0 mm or less, and 256 (3·3 per cent) among patients with a CRM larger than 1·0 mm. The LR rate was 17·0 per cent (27 of 159), 6·7 per cent (39 of 580), 1·9 per cent (2 of 103) and 3·4 per cent (254 of 7550) when the CRM was 0, 0·1-1·0, 1·1-1·9 and at least 2·0 mm respectively. The risk of LR among patients with a CRM of 0 mm was higher than that in all other subgroups with a larger CRM (P < 0·050). There was no difference in LR between the subgroups with CRM 1·1-1·9 mm and at least 2·0 mm. LR was diagnosed earlier when the CRM was 1·0 mm or less.

Conclusion: LR risk is related to exact CRM, with the highest risk in patients with a CRM of 0 mm. Close monitoring of patients with no measurable clear margin may allow early detection of LR.

Antecedentes: Se cree que un margen de resección circunferencial (circumferential resection margin, CRM) de ≤1,0 mm tras la cirugía de cáncer de recto aumenta el riesgo de recidiva local (local recurrence, LR). Este estudio retrospectivo de base poblacional evaluó cómo la distancia del CRM afectaba al riesgo de LR. MÉTODOS: Se utilizaron los datos del Registro Sueco de Cáncer Colorrectal (SCRCR) para el análisis retrospectivo de los cánceres de recto resecados entre 2005 y 2013. El objetivo primario fue la LR.

Resultados: Se identificaron 12.146 pacientes, con 8.666 pacientes analizados después de las exclusiones. Un total de 739 pacientes tenían CRM de ≤ 1,0 mm y 7.653 pacientes CRM de > 1,0 mm. El tiempo medio de seguimiento fue de 51 meses. Hubo 66 (8,9%) casos de LR en grupo de CRM de ≤ 1,0 mm y 256 (3,3%) casos de LR en el grupo de CRM de > 1,0 mm. La tasa de LR fue del 17% (n = 27/159), 6,7% (n = 39/580), 1,9% (n = 2/103) y 3,4% (n = 254/7550) cuando el CRM fue de 0,0 mm, 0,1-1,0 mm, 1,1-1,9 mm y CRM ≥ de 2 mm, respectivamente. El riesgo de LR en CRM de 0,0 mm fue mayor en comparación con todos los otros grupos con CRM mayores (P < 0,05). No se observó diferencia en LR entre CRM de 1,1-1,9 mm y ≥ 2 mm. La LR se diagnosticó más precozmente cuando el CRM era de ≤ 1,0 mm. CONCLUSIÓN: El riesgo de LR está relacionado con el CRM exacto, con un riesgo más alto en pacientes con CRM de 0,0 mm. La monitorización estrecha de pacientes sin un margen claro medible puede permitir la detección temprana de LR.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ. Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1993; 341: 457-460.
    1. Arbman G, Nilsson E, Hallböök O, Sjödahl R. Local recurrence following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1996; 83: 375-379.
    1. Peeters KC, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Kranenbarg EK, Putter H, Wiggers T et al.; Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: increased local control but no survival benefit in irradiated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Ann Surg 2007; 246: 693-701.
    1. Martling A, Holm T, Johansson H, Rutqvist LE, Cedermark B; Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group. The Stockholm II trial on preoperative radiotherapy in rectal carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a population-based study. Cancer 2001; 92: 896-902.
    1. Regionalt Cancercentrum. Rektalcancer. Umeå: Svenska kolorektalcancerregistret; 2016. https://www.cancercentrum.se/globalassets/cancerdiagnoser/tjock--och-and... [accessed 8 April 2018].

Publication types