Journal of surgical oncology · 2014
Fragmented pattern of tumor regression and lateral intramural spread may influence margin appropriateness after TEM for rectal cancer following neoadjuvant CRT.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Perez Rodrigo O, Habr-Gama Angelita, Smith Fraser M, Kosinski Lauren, São Julião Guilherme P, Grzona Esteban, Rawet Viviane, Vianna Maria Regina, Proscurshim Igor, Lynn Patrício Bernardo, Gama-Rodrigues Joaquim
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The main tenets of local excision of rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) are that the mucosal scar represents the main focus of residual disease and a solid conglomerate around this rather than being scattered (fragmented) through the bowel wall.
METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospective cohort of patients with residual rectal ycT1-2N0 adenocarcinoma with small residual tumors (≤3 cm) following CRT who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with 1-cm margins around the residual mucosal abnormality was performed. Distribution and morphology (solid vs. fragmented) of tumor spread were studied and correlated to postoperative oncological outcomes.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were included. Twenty percent (n = 6) were ypT1, 60% (n = 18) were ypT2, and 20% (n = 6) were ypT3 tumors. Fragmentation was present in 37%. The mean distance between foci of residual scattered tumor was 3.6 ± 2.0 mm. Lateral spread under normal mucosa was present in 19 specimens (53%; mean extension 4.8 ± 2.4 mm). With a median follow up of 32 months, none of these findings impacted upon development of recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS: Both occult lateral spread and fragmented tumor patterns are common findings after CRT. Despite the potential of occult spread to mislead surgeon choice of resection margin, its presence did not influence oncological outcome in this series.
METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospective cohort of patients with residual rectal ycT1-2N0 adenocarcinoma with small residual tumors (≤3 cm) following CRT who underwent transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with 1-cm margins around the residual mucosal abnormality was performed. Distribution and morphology (solid vs. fragmented) of tumor spread were studied and correlated to postoperative oncological outcomes.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were included. Twenty percent (n = 6) were ypT1, 60% (n = 18) were ypT2, and 20% (n = 6) were ypT3 tumors. Fragmentation was present in 37%. The mean distance between foci of residual scattered tumor was 3.6 ± 2.0 mm. Lateral spread under normal mucosa was present in 19 specimens (53%; mean extension 4.8 ± 2.4 mm). With a median follow up of 32 months, none of these findings impacted upon development of recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS: Both occult lateral spread and fragmented tumor patterns are common findings after CRT. Despite the potential of occult spread to mislead surgeon choice of resection margin, its presence did not influence oncological outcome in this series.