Anticancer research · 2023
Positive Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer Is a Robust Predictor of Poor Long-term Prognosis With Clinicopathological Bias Between Groups Compensated by Propensity-score Matching Analysis.
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.
Sugimoto Kiichi, Takahashi Hiromitsu, Yuki, Irie Takahiro, Kawaguchi Megumi, Kobari Aya, Amemiya Kota, Tsuchiya Yuki, Motegi Shunsuke, Tsukamoto Ryoichi, Honjo Kumpei, Okazawa Y U, Kawai Masaya, Ishiyama Shun, Takahashi Makoto, Hoffman Robert M, Sakamoto Kazuhiro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: Circumferential resection margin (CRM) is the most reliable predictor of local and distant recurrence in locally-advanced rectal cancer (LARC). The present study was conducted to compare the long-term outcomes between CRM (+) and (-) groups using propensity-score (PS) matching analysis to compensate for bias between groups.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 563 consecutive patients with Stage II/III rectal cancer who were treated surgically with curative-intent at Juntendo University Hospital between Jan 1989 and Mar 2018, 412 patients were enrolled retrospectively in the study. The patients were divided into a CRM (+) group (n=21; 5.1%) and a CRM (-) group (n=391; 94.9%).
RESULTS: In the entire cohort, recurrence-free survival (RFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), non-local recurrence-free survival (NLRFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were significantly worse among patients in the CRM (+) group compared with those in the CRM (-) group. Univariate analysis demonstrated patients in the CRM (+) group had significantly larger primary tumors (p=0.02), more frequently had open surgery (p=0.009), had an abdominoperineal resection (APR) procedure (p=0.01) and a T4 primary tumor (p<0.0001). After PS matching analysis, in the propensity-matched cohort, RFS, LRFS, NLRFS and CSS were significantly worse among patients in the CRM (+) group compared with those in the CRM (-) group.
CONCLUSION: PS matching analysis demonstrated that RFS, LRFS, NLRFS, and CSS were significantly worse among patients in the CRM (+) group compared with those in the CRM (-) group. The present results indicate that CRM (+) is a robust predictor of long-term outcome of LARC, independent of tumor size.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 563 consecutive patients with Stage II/III rectal cancer who were treated surgically with curative-intent at Juntendo University Hospital between Jan 1989 and Mar 2018, 412 patients were enrolled retrospectively in the study. The patients were divided into a CRM (+) group (n=21; 5.1%) and a CRM (-) group (n=391; 94.9%).
RESULTS: In the entire cohort, recurrence-free survival (RFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), non-local recurrence-free survival (NLRFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were significantly worse among patients in the CRM (+) group compared with those in the CRM (-) group. Univariate analysis demonstrated patients in the CRM (+) group had significantly larger primary tumors (p=0.02), more frequently had open surgery (p=0.009), had an abdominoperineal resection (APR) procedure (p=0.01) and a T4 primary tumor (p<0.0001). After PS matching analysis, in the propensity-matched cohort, RFS, LRFS, NLRFS and CSS were significantly worse among patients in the CRM (+) group compared with those in the CRM (-) group.
CONCLUSION: PS matching analysis demonstrated that RFS, LRFS, NLRFS, and CSS were significantly worse among patients in the CRM (+) group compared with those in the CRM (-) group. The present results indicate that CRM (+) is a robust predictor of long-term outcome of LARC, independent of tumor size.