European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2023
Prognostic role of surgical margins in patients undergoing transoral robotic surgery after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Costantino Andrea, Sampieri Claudio, Pirola Francesca, Kim Da Hee, Lee Kyuin, Park Young Min, De Virgilio Armando, Kim Se-Heon
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To define if positive and close surgical margins are associated to worse prognosis in patients who underwent transoral robotic surgery (TORS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT).
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was carried out at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome was local-regional control (LRC), and the results were summarized with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: A total of 308 patients (median age: 62.0, IQR: 55.0-68.2) were included. Univariable analysis showed a significant reduced LRC for patients with positive margins (HR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.02-3.24). However, they were not associated with worse LRC after adjusting for adverse tumor variables (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.40-1.65). ROC analysis was performed on 123 patients with negative margins (AUC: 0.54) measuring an optimal threshold of 1.25 mm (sensitivity = 60.0%; specificity = 50.5%). Univariable analysis showed non-significant differences between close and wide negative margins (HR = 1.44, 95% CI: 0.59-3.54).
CONCLUSIONS: A positive surgical margin is not an independent predictor of tumor control and survival. A threshold of 1.25 mm was identified as the most appropriate to define close margins, but no difference was measured after distinguishing negative margins in close and wide margins.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was carried out at a tertiary referral center. The primary outcome was local-regional control (LRC), and the results were summarized with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: A total of 308 patients (median age: 62.0, IQR: 55.0-68.2) were included. Univariable analysis showed a significant reduced LRC for patients with positive margins (HR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.02-3.24). However, they were not associated with worse LRC after adjusting for adverse tumor variables (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.40-1.65). ROC analysis was performed on 123 patients with negative margins (AUC: 0.54) measuring an optimal threshold of 1.25 mm (sensitivity = 60.0%; specificity = 50.5%). Univariable analysis showed non-significant differences between close and wide negative margins (HR = 1.44, 95% CI: 0.59-3.54).
CONCLUSIONS: A positive surgical margin is not an independent predictor of tumor control and survival. A threshold of 1.25 mm was identified as the most appropriate to define close margins, but no difference was measured after distinguishing negative margins in close and wide margins.