The prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients without neoadjuvant treatment

Background

Circumferential resection margin (CRM) is very important in esophageal cancer, but its diagnostic criteria has not been unified. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) provide two different criteria. The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term prognostic significance of CRM status with different CRM criteria in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

Influence of CRM status according to the CAP and RCP criteria on long-term survival of 838 patients with resected pT3 tumors and without neoadjuvant therapy was analyzed. Patients stratified into three groups on the basis of tumor distance from the CRM (CRM > 1 mm, 0-1 mm, and 0 mm) were also analysed.

Results

Positive CRM was found in 59 (7%) patients according to the CAP criteria and 317 (37.8%) patients according to the RCP criteria. Univariate and multivariate survival analysis showed that CRM status, according to three different criteria, was independent prognostic factor. However, subgroup analysis showed that the prognostic value of CRM status was limited to certain metastatic lymph node load. In pN0 subgroup, patients with CRM > 1 mm had better prognosis than patients with CRM 0-1 mm. Patients with CRM 0 mm had worse outcome than patients with CRM > 0 mm in pN1-2 subgroup. But CRM status had no prognosis value in pN3 subgroup.

Conclusions

The CRM status is an important prognostic factor in ESCC patients, but this effect was limited to patients without or with less lymph node metastasis (pN0-2). In clinical practice, we recommend the 1 mm-three-tier criteria as it provides more prognostic value than the traditional two-tier criteria.

Positive circumferential resection margin in locally advanced esophageal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of positive circumferential resection margin on prognosis in esophageal cancer is under controversy. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses had limitations. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prognostic impact of positive circumferential resection margin in esophageal cancer.PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies investigating the association between circumferential resection margin status and prognosis in esophageal cancer. Study population were focused on T3 and/or T4a patients. Study selection was based on availability of survival information (Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted analysis). Random-effects models were used to summarize hazard ratios for overall survival and disease-free survival.According to College of American Pathologists criteria, circumferential resection margin-positive patients had shorter median overall survival (P < 0.0001) and shorter median disease-free survival (P < 0.0001) compared with circumferential resection margin-negative patients. The pooled hazard ratios for overall survival and disease-free survival were 2.06 (95% confidence interval, 1.68-2.53; P < 0.0001) and 2.00 (95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.84; P < 0.0001), respectively. According to the Royal College of Pathologists criteria, circumferential resection margin-positive patients had shorter median overall survival (P < 0.0001) and shorter median disease-free survival (P < 0.0001) compared with circumferential resection margin-negative patients. The pooled hazard ratios for overall survival and disease-free survival were 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.48; P < 0.0001) and 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.57; P < 0.0001), respectively.ompared with negative circumferential resection margin, positive circumferential resection margin is associated with worse survival outcomes in esophageal cancer.

Meta-analysis of prognostic factors of overall survival in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system is used for prognostication for oesophageal cancer. However, several prognostically important factors have been reported but not incorporated. This meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of preoperative, operative, and oncological factors on the prognosis of patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines and eligible studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to 31 December 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of random-effects modeling to determine pooled univariable hazard ratios (HRs). The study was prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration: CRD42018157966).

RESULTS

One-hundred and seventy-one articles including 73,629 patients were assessed quantitatively. Of the 122 factors associated with survival, 39 were significant on pooled analysis. Of these. the strongly associated prognostic factors were 'pathological' T stage (HR: 2.07, CI95%: 1.77-2.43, P < 0.001), 'pathological' N stage (HR: 2.24, CI95%: 1.95-2.59, P < 0.001), perineural invasion (HR: 1.54, CI95%: 1.36-1.74, P < 0.001), circumferential resection margin (HR: 2.17, CI95%: 1.82-2.59, P < 0.001), poor tumor grade (HR: 1.53, CI95%: 1.34-1.74, P < 0.001), and high neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (HR: 1.47, CI95%: 1.30-1.66, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Several tumor biological variables not included in the AJCC 8th edition classification can impact on overall survival. Incorporation and validation of these factors into prognostic models and next edition of the AJCC system will enable personalized approach to prognostication and treatment.

Prognostic impact of circumferential resection margin in esophageal cancer with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

The prognostic impact of circumferential resection margin (CRM) in surgically resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has been controversial. This investigation assessed the prognostic impact of CRM in surgically resected pathologic T3 ESCC patients with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). We reviewed consecutive p/yp T3 ESCC patients undergoing esophagectomy from two medical centers between January 2009 and December 2016. The cohort was divided into two groups: upfront esophagectomy (upfront surgery) and nCRT followed by esophagectomy (nCRT + surgery). CRM status was assessed and divided into CRM > 1 mm, 0 < CRM < 1 mm, and tumor at CRM. A total of 217 p/yp T3 ESCC patients undergoing esophagectomy (138 patients in the upfront surgery group and 79 in the nCRT + surgery group) were enrolled. In the upfront surgery group, patients with 0 < CRM < 1 mm showed equivalent overall survival to those with CRM > 1 mm (log-rank P = 0.817) and significantly outlived those with tumor at CRM (log-rank P < 0.001). However, in the nCRT + surgery group, CRM > 1 mm failed to show survival superiority to CRM between 0 and 1 mm or involved by cancer (log-rank P = 0.390). In conclusion, a negative CRM, even though being <1 mm, is adequate for pT3 ESCC patients undergoing upfront esophagectomy. In contrast, the CRM status is less prognostic in ypT3 ESCC patients undergoing nCRT followed by esophagectomy.

Meta-analysis of the influence of a positive circumferential resection margin in oesophageal cancer

Background

The evidence regarding the prognostic impact of a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) in oesophageal cancer is conflicting, and there is global variability in the definition of a positive CRM. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a positive CRM on survival in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.

Methods

A systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed. PubMed and Embase databases were searched for articles to May 2018 examining the effect of a positive CRM on survival. Cohort studies written in English were included. Meta‐analyses of univariable and multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) were performed using both Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) and College of American Pathologists (CAP) criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Egger regression, and Duval and Tweedie trim‐and‐fill statistics were used to assess publication bias.

Results

Of 133 studies screened, 29 incorporating 6142 patients were finally included for analysis. Pooled univariable HRs for overall survival in patients with a positive CRM were 1·68 (95 per cent c.i. 1·48 to 1·91; P < 0·001) and 2·18 (1·84 to 2·60; P < 0·001) using RCP and CAP criteria respectively. Subgroup analyses demonstrated similar results for patients by T category, neoadjuvant therapy and tumour type. Pooled HRs from multivariable analyses suggested that a positive CRM was independently predictive of a worse overall survival (RCP: 1·41, 1·21 to 1·64, P < 0·001; CAP: 2·37, 1·60 to 3·51, P < 0·001).

Conclusion

A positive CRM is associated with a worse prognosis regardless of classification system, T category, tumour type or neoadjuvant therapy.

Prognostic significance of circumferential resection margin involvement in patients receiving potentially curative treatment for oesophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

The utility of Circumferential Resection Margin (CRM) status in predicting prognosis in oesophageal cancer is controversial, with different definitions used by the College of American Pathologists and the Royal College of Pathologists. We aimed to determine prognostic significance of CRM involvement and evaluate which system is the best predictor of prognosis.

METHODS

A cohort of 390 patients who had potentially curative oesophagectomy (- + neoadjuvant chemotherapy) were analysed. Associations between CRM involvement and patient outcome were assessed for the whole cohort, and for pre-specified subgroups of T3 tumours and those who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

CRM-involvement was associated with higher T and N stage, tumour differentiation, increased tumour length and both lymphovascular and perineural invasion. Overall Survival (OS) and Recurrence Free Survival (RFS) significantly worsened with CRM-involvement (p = 0.001, p < 0.001). R1a (<1 mm but no macroscopic involvement) resulted in significantly improved OS (p = 0.037) and RFS (P = 0.026) compared to R1b (macroscopic involvement), but did not differ significantly from R0 (≥1 mm). The association between CRM-involvement and both OS and RFS remained significant regardless of whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy was given. However, CRM-involvement was not a significant prognostic marker in T3 patients (p = 0.148). Multivariable analysis found N stage, lymphovascular invasion, patient age and neoadjuvant chemotherapy to be significantly predictive of patient outcome. CRM-involvement was not a significant independent prognostic marker.

CONCLUSIONS

CRM-involvement was not found to be independently predictive of prognosis, after accounting for other prognostic markers. As such, CRM should not be considered a major prognostic factor in patients with oesophageal cancer.