Abstract:BackgroundTo assess the prognostic significance of positive circumferential resection margin on overall survival in patients with esophageal cancer, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.MethodsStudies were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Survival data were extracted from eligible studies to compare overall survival in patients with a positive circumferential resection margin with patients having a negative circumferential resection margin according to the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) criteria and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) criteria. Survival data were pooled with hazard ratios (HRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model meta-analysis on overall survival was performed.ResultsThe pooled HRs for survival were 1.510 (95% CI, 1.329–1.717; p < 0.001) and 2.053 (95% CI, 1.597–2.638; p < 0.001) according to the RCP and CAP criteria, respectively. Positive circumferential resection margin was associated with worse survival in patients with T3 stage disease according to the RCP (HR, 1.381; 95% CI, 1.028–1.584; p = 0.001) and CAP (HR, 2.457; 95% CI, 1.902–3.175; p < 0.001) criteria, respectively. Positive circumferential resection margin was associated with worse survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy according to the RCP (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 1.023–2.744; p = 0.040) and CAP (HR, 1.847; 95% CI, 1.226–2.78; p = 0.003) criteria, respectively.ConclusionsPositive circumferential resection margin is associated with poor prognosis in patients with esophageal cancer, particularly in patients with T3 stage disease and patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. To assess the prognostic significance of positive circumferential resection margin on overall survival in patients with esophageal cancer, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Studies were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Survival data were extracted from eligible studies to compare overall survival in patients with a positive circumferential resection margin with patients having a negative circumferential resection margin according to the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) criteria and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) criteria. Survival data were pooled with hazard ratios (HRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model meta-analysis on overall survival was performed. The pooled HRs for survival were 1.510 (95% CI, 1.329–1.717; p < 0.001) and 2.053 (95% CI, 1.597–2.638; p < 0.001) according to the RCP and CAP criteria, respectively. Positive circumferential resection margin was associated with worse survival in patients with T3 stage disease according to the RCP (HR, 1.381; 95% CI, 1.028–1.584; p = 0.001) and CAP (HR, 2.457; 95% CI, 1.902–3.175; p < 0.001) criteria, respectively. Positive circumferential resection margin was associated with worse survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy according to the RCP (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 1.023–2.744; p = 0.040) and CAP (HR, 1.847; 95% CI, 1.226–2.78; p = 0.003) criteria, respectively. Positive circumferential resection margin is associated with poor prognosis in patients with esophageal cancer, particularly in patients with T3 stage disease and patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.

Surgical margins after partial nephrectomy as prognostic factor for the risk of local recurrence in pT1 RCC: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

The Prognostic Impact of the Surgical Margin in Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Partial Nephrectomy: A Multi-Center Study

Positive surgical margins may not affect the survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma after partial nephrectomy: A meta-analysis based on 39 studies

Surgical margin does not influence recurrence rate in pT1 clear cell renal cell carcinoma after partial nephrectomy: A multicenter study

Prognostic Improvement of Reexcision for Positive Resection Margins in Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer.

Significant reduction in positive surgical margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by application of the modified surgical margin recommendations of the 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus

Oncologic Outcomes Following Positive Surgical Margins in Patients who Underwent Open Versus

Positive surgical margin is associated with biochemical recurrence risk following radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis from high-quality retrospective cohort studies

Prediction of clinically significant recurrence after partial nephrectomy. Data from the Cancer Registry of Norway with more than five years of follow-up

Risk Factors for Positive Surgical Margins in Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Prognostic Significance of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin in Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Analysis of risk factors for positive surgical margin after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with and without neoadjuvant hormonal therapy

Risk Factors Analysis for Positive Surgical Margins in Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Integration of Multiparameter MRI into Conventional Pretreatment Risk Factors to Predict Positive Surgical Margins after Radical Prostatectomy.

Prospective evaluation of surgical margins in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer following primary transurethral resection

Long-term Oncologic Impact of Positive Anterior and Posterior Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy

Analysis of factors associated with positive surgical margins and the five-year survival rate after prostate cancer resection and predictive modeling

The value of preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and red blood cell distribution width in predicting positive surgical margin after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis

Development of preoperative nomograms to predict the risk of overall and multifocal positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy

Risk Factors for Positive Resection Margins in Breast-Conserving Surgery for Breast Cancer—Retrospective Analysis