Risk Factors Associated With Circumferential Resection Margin Positivity in Rectal Cancer: A Binational Registry Study. Issue 4 (April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Warrier, Satish K.; Kong, Joseph Cherng; Guerra, Glen R.; Chittleborough, Timothy J.; Naik, Arun; Ramsay, Robert G.; Lynch, A. Craig; Heriot, Alexander G.
• Is Part Of: Diseases of the colon & rectum. Volume 61:Issue 4(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-04
• Subjects: Circumferential resection margin -- Quality of surgery -- Rectal cancer; Colon (Anatomy) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Rectum -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Colonic Diseases -- Periodicals; Colorectal Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.34
• DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001026
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0012-3706

Abstract

Abstract : BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer outcomes have improved with the adoption of a multidisciplinary model of care. However, there is a spectrum of quality when viewed from a national perspective, as highlighted by the Consortium for Optimizing the Treatment of Rectal Cancer data on rectal cancer care in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess and identify predictors of circumferential resection margin involvement for rectal cancer across Australasia. DESIGN: A retrospective study from a prospectively maintained binational colorectal cancer database was interrogated. SETTINGS: This study is based on a binational colorectal cancer audit database. PATIENTS: Clinical information on all consecutive resected rectal cancer cases recorded in the registry from 2007 to 2016 was retrieved, collated, and analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was positive circumferential resection margin, measured as a resection margin ⩽1 mm. RESULTS: A total of 3367 patients were included, with 261 (7.5%) having a positive circumferential resection margin. After adjusting for hospital and surgeon volume, hierarchical logistic regression analysis identified a 6-variable model encompassing the independent predictors, including urgent operation, abdominoperineal resection, open technique, low rectal cancer, T3 to T4, and N1 to N2. The accuracy of the model was 92.3%, with an receiver operating characteristic of 0.783 ( p < 0.0001). The quantitative risk associated with circumferential resection margin positivity ranged from <1% (no risk factors) to 43% (6 risk factors). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the lack of recorded long-term outcomes associated with circumferential resection margin positivity. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of circumferential resection margin involvement in patients undergoing rectal cancer resection in Australasia is low and is influenced by a number of factors. Risk stratification of outcome is important with the increasing demand for publicly accessible quality data. SeeVideo Abstract athttp://links.lww.com/DCR/A512 .