Prognostic Implications of Distal Resection Margin Length in Rectal Cancer Proctectomy: A Retrospective Analysis.
Ming Li,Xiaodong Wang,Pengfei Niu,Yong Yang,Jiajia Chen,Jingxuan Xu,Yu Cheng,Yanzhao Wang,Chang Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e15605
IF: 45.3
2024-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e15605 Background: Proctectomy remains pivotal in rectal cancer treatment for 70% of patients, even post-neoadjuvant therapy. The determination of an appropriate distal resection margin (DRM) in proctectomy for rectal cancer is critical for achieving both curative resection and organ preservation. However, the prognostic impact of DRM length, especially measured before the shrinkage caused by fixation in pathology, remains unclear. Methods: This retrospective study include 224 stage II-III rectal cancer patients who underwent proctectomy between 2015 and 2020. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and follow-up data (median: 44.4 months) were collected. The lengths of mesorectal and rectal DRM were both measured on fresh specimens before pathological processing. A specific metric, (rectal DRM - mesorectum DRM)/rectal DRM > 10%, identified patients with shorter mesorectal DRMs, denoted as the "MS group". Results: Out of 224 patients, 68 (30.4%) had a rectal DRM ≤1 cm, and 156 (69.6%) > 1 cm. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of gender, use of neoadjuvant therapy, or high-risk factors like extramural venous and perineural invasion. The local recurrence (LR), disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) rates did not differ significantly between groups, with P = 0.66, 0.082, 0.054, respectively. Cox univariate analysis identified pT, pN, gender, and CEA level as significant factors for OS and DSS, while DRM group was not (p = 0.06). A 5-year OS predictive model (AUC = 0.864) indicated DRM's insignificant impact on OS, validated against SEER and TCGA databases. Further analysis in 182 Dixon surgery cases revealed no significant OS or DSS differences between patients with mesorectal DRM < 1cm and those with > 1cm. Notably, 23.6% (43/182) belonged to the MS group with shorter mesorectal DRM, showing significantly inferior OS (P = 0.026) and DSS (P = 0.000265) compared to the ML group. Conclusions: In this study, while a 1 cm DRM in mesorectal and rectal regions is validated as safe for rectal cancer proctectomy, our findings indicate this is not an absolute measure of oncological safety. Patients with a mesorectal DRM shorter than the rectal DRM had inferior outcomes, suggesting the need for a more nuanced approach. Thus, a comprehensive DRM evaluation, beyond a fixed length threshold, is essential to improve surgical outcomes and patient prognosis.