Factors Determining Circumferential Resection Margin of Rectal Cancer at Maharat Nakhon Ratchasima Hospital
Keywords:Circumferential resection margin, Rectal cancer, Total mesorectal excision
Background: Total mesorectal excision (TME) has recently achieved excellent oncological outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. The TME procedure aims at free circumferential resection margins (CRM), which has been found to be an acceptable surrogate endpoint for loco-regional and disease-free survival.
Objective: To assess factors affecting rates of CRM involvement after rectal cancer excision.
Patients and Methods: The prospective study of 80 rectal carcinoma patients who have definitive operation from January 1, 2009 to July 31, 2010 at Maharat Nakhon Ratchasima Hospital.
Results: Eighty rectal cancer patients (65%) were male with mean age of 62.2 years. The majority of cases (46.3 %) were in stage III disease. In T category, the majority of cases (81.3 %) were in T3 stage and 49% were in N0 stage. The most common location of cancers (40%) was the lower rectum followed by the upper and middle rectum at 30% equally. Univariate analysis of various clinicopathological parameters showed that sex, age > 50 yrs, mucin production, poorly differentiation, presence of neural or lymphovascular invasion, lymph node status, tumor stage III or IV, location of rectal cancer, type of operation, preoperative radiotherapy or even the length of surgeon experience did not influence the CRM involvement. The only factor that significantly affected CRM involvement was T4 category cancer (P = 0.01).
Conclusions: Advanced T stage was found to significantly affect the CRM involvement.
2. Sriplung H. Projection of cancer problems, In: Khuhaprema T, Srivatanakul P, Sriplung H, Wiangnon S, Sumifsawan Y, Attasara Peditors. Cancer in Thailand Vol. IV, 1998-2000, Bangkok: Bangkok Medical Publisher; 2007. p. 81-3.
3. Havenga K, DeRuiter MC. Enker WE, Welvaart K. Anatomic basis of autonomic nerve preserving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 1996; 83:384-8.
4. Church JM, Raudklvi PJ, Hill GL. The surgical anatomy of the rectum-a review with particular relevance to the hazard of rectal mobilization. Int J Colorectal Dis 1987; 2:158-66.
5. Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Ryall RD, Sexton R, MacFarlane JK. Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1987-1997. Arch Surg 1998; 133:894-9.
6. Enker WE, Thaler HT, Cranor ML, Polyak T. Total mesorectol excision in the operative treatment of carcinoma of the rectum. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 18:335-46.
7. Kobayashi H, Mochizuki H, Sugihara K, et al. Characteristics of recurrence and surveillance tools after curative resection for colorectal cancer: a multicenter study. Surgery 2007; 141:67-75.
8. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery: the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 1982; 69:613-6.
9. Kapiteijin E, Marijnen CA, Nagtergaal ID, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision resectable rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:638-46.
10. Wibe A, Moller B, Norstein J, et al. A national strategic change in treatment policy for rectal cancer.
lmplementation of total mesorectal excision as routine treatment in Norway: a national audit. Dis Col Rect 2002; 45: 857-66.
11. Adam IJ, Mohamdee MO, Martin IG, et al. Role of circumferential margin involvement in the local recurrence of rectal cancer. Lancet 1994; 344:707-11.
12. Glynne-Jones R, Mawdsley S, Pearce T, Buyse M. Alternative clinical endpoints in rectal cancer: are we getting closer? Ann Oncol 2006; 17:1239-48.
13. Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS. Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection: histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excision. Lancet 1986; 2:996-9.
14. Martling AL, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, Moran BJ, Heald RJ, Cedermask B. Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm. Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Basingstoke Bowel Cancer Research Project. Lancet 2000; 356:93-6.
15. Garcia-Aguilar J, Cromwell Jw, Marra C, Lee SH, Madoff RD, Rothenberger DA. Treatment of locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Col Rect 2001; 44:1743-8.
16. Temple WJ, Saettler EB. Locally recurrent rectal cancer: role of composite resection of extensive pelvic tumors with strategies for minimizing risk of recurrence. J Surg Oncol 2000; 73:47-58.
17. Adam IJ, Mohamdee MO, Martin IG, Role of circumferential margin involvement in them local recurrence of rectal cancer. Lancet 1994; 344:707-11.
18. Wang C, Zhou ZG, Yu VY, et al. Occurrence and Prognostic value of circumferential resection margin involvement for patients with rectal cancer, Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24:385-90.
19, Martling A, Cedermark B, Johansson H, Rutqvist LE, Holm T. The surgeon as a prognostic factor after the introduction of total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2002; 89:1008-13.
20. Bernstein TE, Endreseth BH, Romundstad P, Wibe A; Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Group. Circumferential resection margin as prognostic factor in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2009; 96:1948-57.
21. Wibe A. Rendedal PR, Svensson E et al. Prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2002; 89:327-34.
22. Tilney HS, Tekkis PP, Sains PS, Constantinides VA, Heriot AG, Factors affecting circumferential resection margin involvement after rectal cancer excision. Dis Col Rect 2007; 50:29-36.
How to Cite
Articles must be contributed solely to The Thai Journal of Surgery and when published become the property of the Royal College of Surgeons of Thailand. The Royal College of Surgeons of Thailand reserves copyright on all published materials and such materials may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission.