Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPatrao, Ana
dc.contributor.authorPapaxoinis, Georgios
dc.contributor.authorKordatou, Zoe
dc.contributor.authorWeaver, Jamie M
dc.contributor.authorOwen-Holt, Vikki
dc.contributor.authorAlkhaffaf, B
dc.contributor.authorGalloway, S
dc.contributor.authorMansoor, Was
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-29T14:22:37Z
dc.date.available2019-03-29T14:22:37Z
dc.date.issued2019en
dc.identifier.citationPatrao A, Papaxoinis G, Kordatou Z, Weaver J, Owen-Holt V, Alkhaffaf B, et al. Prognostic significance of positive circumferential resection margin post neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(3):439-45.en
dc.identifier.pmid30786962en
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejso.2018.10.530en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/621707
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to assess the prognosis of patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (E/GEJ) adenocarcinoma extending beyond the muscularis propria layer (?ypT3) and positive circumferential resection margin (CRM), post neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: 177 patients were retrospectively studied. The majority (94.9%) received ECX (epirubicin, cisplatin, capecitabine), and all had clear proximal/distal resection margins. CRM was defined as positive (CRM+) when it was directly infiltrated (infiltrated CRM) or when tumor cells were detected within 1 mm from CRM (close CRM) and as negative (CRM-) when tumor cells were found in a distance > 1 mm from CRM. RESULTS: CRM+ was found in 83 patients (46.9%). Of them, infiltrated CRM was recorded in 36 (20.3%) and close CRM in 47 (26.6%). Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 132 patients (74.6%). Lymphovascular invasion and primary site in the lower esophagus were independently associated with higher risk of CRM+. Patients with infiltrated CRM, compared to those with close CRM and those CRM-, had the shortest median time-to-relapse (11.4 vs. 15.6 vs. 22.1 months, respectively, p?=?0.005) and overall survival (18.7 vs. 23.1 vs. 38.8 months, respectively, p = 0.001). However, CRM status was not an independent predictor of poor outcome. Symptomatic isolated locoregional recurrences were rare in both CRM+ and CRM-patients (4/56 [7.1%] vs. 5/52 [9.6%], p?=?0.736), as well as in infiltrated vs. non-infiltrated CRM (CRM- and close CRM) (0/26 [0%] vs. 9/82 [11.0%], p?=?0.110). CONCLUSION: Although CRM status is associated with poor outcome, it does not represent an independent prognostic factor. The status of CRM did not significantly influence the pattern of cancer relapseen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.10.530en
dc.titlePrognostic significance of positive circumferential resection margin post neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinomaen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Manchester Division of Cancer Sciences, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UKen
dc.identifier.journalEuropeanJournal of Surgical Oncologyen
dc.description.noteen]


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record