Abstract
Background
Distal resection margin (DRM) is closely associated with sphincter‐preserving surgery and oncological safety for patients with mid‐low rectal cancers. However, the optimal DRM has not been determined.
Methods
Data of 378 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic‐assisted sphincter‐preserving surgery from 2009 to 2015 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups based on DRM: ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304). To minimize the differences between the two groups, propensity‐score matching on baseline features was performed.
Results
Before propensity‐score matching, no significant differences in 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) (92.8% versus 81.3%, P = 0.128) and 5‐year overall survival (OS) (83.7% versus 82.2%, P = 0.892) were observed in patients with DRMs of ≤1 cm (n = 74) and >1 cm (n = 304), respectively. After propensity‐score matching (1:1), there were also no significant differences in DFS (88.1% versus 78.2%, P = 0.162) and OS (84.5% versus 84.9%, P = 0.420) between the DRM of ≤1 cm group (n = 65) and >1 cm group (n = 65), respectively. A total of 44 patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In this cohort, the 5‐year local recurrence (LR) rates (P = 0.118) and the 5‐year DFS rates (P = 0.298) were not significantly different between the two groups. A total of 334 patients received surgery without neoadjuvant CRT. There were also no significant differences in the 5‐year LR rates (P = 0.150) and 5‐year DFS rates (P = 0.172) between the two groups.
Conclusions
When aiming to achieve at least a 1–2 cm distal clinical resection margin, a histological resection margin of <1 cm on the DRM gave equivalent clinical outcomes to a DRM of >1 cm.
Keywords: distal resection margin, local recurrence, overall survival, rectal cancer, sphincter‐preserving surgery
The optimal distal resection margin (DRM) has been debated in sphincter‐saving surgery for patients with low‐lying rectal cancers. We analysed the impact of a DRM of 1 cm on local recurrence and long‐term survival for patients who underwent sphincter‐preserving surgery. No matter whether patients received neoadjuvant therapy, a DRM of 1 cm may be acceptable.
Introduction
Circumferential resection margin (CRM) and distal resection margin (DRM) are strongly associated with local recurrence (LR) and distant metastasis. Positive distal margins are associated with worse oncological results and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) cannot compensate for this. 1 , 2 Therefore, a DRM of at least 5 cm was suggested for patients with locally advanced rectal cancers in the past. 3 , 4 However, with the advent of total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery, 5 neoadjuvant CRT (NCRT) 6 , 7 , 8 and advances in laparoscopic surgery, 9 shorter DRM was found to be oncologically adequate. 10 , 11
However, the optimal DRM is still controversial in sphincter‐saving surgery. Several studies showed that a DRM of less than 1 cm did not jeopardize the long‐term survival and LR. 11 , 12 , 13 Nevertheless, Kondo et al. revealed that a DRM of 2 cm was required for patients with low‐lying rectal cancer even if they were offered NCRT. 14 So, the optimal DRM and its oncological implications for rectal carcinoma patients with or without NCRT need further investigation.
Methods
Patients
Clinicopathological data of 378 consecutive patients with rectal cancers treated by laparoscopy‐assisted anterior resection with standard TME were collected from January 2009 through December 2015. Patients with a history of other malignant tumours, distant metastasis or a pathologically proven positive CRM or DRM were excluded. Clinicopathological data were obtained through electronic medical records, and survival data through the special follow‐up centre of our hospital. Informed consent was obtained from each patient enrolled in the study. All operations performed in this study involving patients were in line with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute.
NCRT and surgical procedure
NCRT was recommended for participants with cT3 or T4 tumour and/or lymph nodes metastasis. Three‐dimensional conformal intensity‐modulated radiotherapy was used. NCRT protocol comprised a total irradiation dose of 50.4 Gy, delivered in 2 Gy fractions, 5 days per week for 5 weeks. Concurrent chemotherapy consisted of continuous infusion of 5‐fluorouracil and leucovorin or oral capecitabine.
Laparoscopy‐assisted low anterior resection was performed by experienced surgeons. For lesions close to the anorectal junction, when the aim of a DRM greater than 1 cm cannot be achieved, a microscopically negative DRM was acceptable. The DRM of the fresh resected specimen was inspected by the surgeon. If it was suspiciously positive or microscopically involved at a frozen‐section examination, an additional part of the distal rectum was removed or abdominoperineal resection was adopted. Digestive tract reconstruction was performed using double‐stapled or hand‐sewn anastomosis.
Histopathology
The DRM was measured following the microscopic examination of the formalin‐fixed specimen. It was defined as the closest distance from the lowest border of the lesion (or the scar tissue after NCRT) to the distal mucosal resection margin. The doughnut was examined microscopically, but not included in this measurement.
Definition of recurrence
LR, including anastomotic and pelvic lymph nodes recurrence, was defined as any clinically or histopathologically confirmed carcinoma recurrence after primary operation. Distant metastasis is defined as the metastasis of cancer cells to distant organs (e.g. lung, liver, bone) or lymph nodes (e.g. para‐aortic or supraclavicular lymph nodes).
Statistical analysis
Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages. Continuous variables are described as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or as median for skewed or kurtotic distributions. Pearson's chi‐squared test was used to determine differences between categorical variables. Student's t‐test and Mann–Whitney U‐test were used to analyse continuous variables. Kaplan–Meier method with the log‐rank test was used for survival analysis. A P‐value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Propensity‐score matching was performed to minimize baseline differences. Nearest‐neighbour matching without replacement was used. Matching was conducted with the use of a 1:1 matching protocol, with a calliper width equal to 0.2 of the SD of the logit of the propensity score. All analyses were carried out with SPSS version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Results
Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with mid‐low rectal cancer
Detailed clinicopathological data of the 378 rectal cancer patients are shown in Table 1. The mean DRM length was 0.8 ± 0.3 cm in the DRM of ≤1 cm group and 2.6 ± 1.0 cm in the DRM of >1 cm group. The mean distance from the anal verge in the DRM of ≤1 cm group was significantly different from that in the DRM of >1 cm group (8.3 ± 3.3 versus 9.3 ± 2.8 cm, P = 0.017). The groups were comparable in gender, age, preoperative CRT, tumour differentiation and lymphovascular invasion. There were more patients with pT1/T2 in the DRM of ≤1 cm group (48.7% versus 21.0%, P < 0.001), as well as more TNM p‐stage I/II (62.2% versus 53.9%, P < 0.001), respectively.
Table 1.
Features of the patients in different subgroups
| Variables | Before matching | After matching | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DRM ≤1 cm (n = 74) | DRM >1 cm (n = 304) | P | DRM ≤1 cm (n = 65) | DRM >1 cm (n = 65) | P | |
| Distal margin (cm), (mean ± SD) | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 2.6 ± 1.0 | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 2.4 ± 0.9 | ||
| Age (mean ± SD) | 63 ± 10.9 | 60 ± 10.3 | 0.055 | 63.2 ± 11.1 | 63.9 ± 8.9 | 0.709 |
| Sex | 0.932 | 0.598 | ||||
| Male | 40 | 166 | 33 | 36 | ||
| Female | 34 | 138 | 32 | 29 | ||
| Tumour distance from AV (cm, range) | 8.3 ± 3.3 | 9.3 ± 2.8 | 0.017 | 8.5 ± 3.4 | 8.5 ± 2.5 | 1.000 |
| Pathological T stage | <0.001 | 0.932 | ||||
| T1 | 12 | 18 | 8 | 6 | ||
| T2 | 24 | 46 | 21 | 20 | ||
| T3 | 36 | 188 | 34 | 37 | ||
| T4 | 2 | 52 | 2 | 2 | ||
| TNM stage | <0.001 | 0.519 | ||||
| I | 28 | 50 | 23 | 17 | ||
| II | 18 | 114 | 18 | 20 | ||
| III | 28 | 140 | 24 | 28 | ||
| Preoperative CRT | 0.171 | 0.435 | ||||
| Yes | 12 | 32 | 10 | 7 | ||
| No | 62 | 272 | 55 | 58 | ||
| Tumour differentiation | 0.745 | 0.739 | ||||
| Well | 4 | 20 | 4 | 3 | ||
| Moderately | 56 | 242 | 49 | 54 | ||
| Poorly | 12 | 36 | 10 | 7 | ||
| Uncertainly | 2 | 6 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Perineural invasion, n (%) | 4 (5.4) | 16 (5.3) | 1.000 | 2 (3.1) | 7 (10.8) | 0.167 |
| Lymphovascular invasion, n (%) | 8 (10.8) | 44 (14.5) | 0.412 | 8 (12.3) | 8 (12.3) | 1.000 |
Data are given as number of patients with percentage.
AV, anal verge; CRT, chemoradiotherapy; DRM, distal resection margin.
After applying propensity‐score matching strategy (1:1), 65 patients with a DRM of ≤1 cm were matched to 65 patients with a DRM of >1 cm. Based on the results presented in Table 1, there were no significant differences in baseline clinicopathological data between the two groups (P > 0.05).
Oncological results in relation to the different distal margins regardless of NCRT
Before propensity‐score matching, five out of 74 (6.8%) patients with a DRM of ≤1 cm developed LR, and 18 out of 304 (5.9%) patients with a DRM of >1 cm had LR (P = 0.920). The distant metastasis rate was similar between the two groups (8.1% versus 13.2%, P = 0.183). After propensity‐score matching (Table 2), the LR rate was same in both groups (7.7% versus 7.7%, P = 1.000). No significant difference was observed in distant metastasis between the two groups (9.2% versus 15.4%, P = 0.286).
Table 2.
Oncological results in relation to different distal margins
| Before matching | After matching | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | DRM ≤1 cm | DRM >1 cm | P | DRM ≤1 cm | DRM >1 cm | P |
| (n = 74) | (n = 304) | (n = 65) | (n = 65) | |||
| Median follow‐up, months (range) | 78 (3–126) | 70 (8–132) | 0.646 | 79 (3–126) | 65 (15–118) | 0.122 |
| Local recurrence (%) | 5/74 (6.8) | 18/304 (5.9) | 0.92 | 5/65 (7.7) | 5/65 (7.7) | 1.000 |
| Metastasis (%) | 6/74 (8.1) | 40/304 (13.2) | 0.183 | 6/65 (9.2) | 10/65 (15.4) | 0.286 |
| 5‐year DFS (%) | 92.8 | 81.3 | 0.128 | 88.1 | 78.2 | 0.162 |
| 5‐year OS (%) | 83.7 | 82.2 | 0.892 | 84.5 | 84.9 | 0.420 |
Data are given as number of patients with recurrence/total number of patients.
DFS, disease‐free survival; DRM, distal resection margin; OS, overall survival.
The patterns of LR and distant metastasis are presented in Table 3. With regard to LR, pelvic lymph node recurrence was more common than anastomotic recurrence in both groups. These five patients with LR were randomly distributed in the DRM of ≤1 cm group. Detailed information is shown in Table 4 and Figure S1. With regard to distant metastasis, the lung was the most common metastatic organ in the two groups. The specific distant metastatic locations are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
Patterns of LR and distant metastasis in the subgroups
| Recurrence sites | DRM ≤1 cm (n = 74) | DRM >1 cm (n = 304) |
|---|---|---|
| LR, n (%) | ||
| Anastomotic | 2 (2.7) | 6 (2.0) |
| Pelvic LN | 3 (4.1) | 12 (3.9) |
| DM, n (%) | ||
| Liver | 0 (0.0) | 12 (3.9) |
| Lung | 4 (5.4) | 16 (5.3) |
| Liver and lung | 2 (2.7) | 8 (2.6) |
| Para‐aortic lymph nodes | 1 (1.4) | 2 (0.7) |
| Ovary | 0 (0.0) | 2 (0.7) |
DM, distant metastasis; DRM, distal resection margin; LN, lymph node; LR, local recurrence.
Table 4.
More information about LR in the DRM of ≤1 cm group
| Case number | Sex (M/F) | Preoperative CRT | DRM, mm | pTNM | DFS, months | Sites of LR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | No | 10 | pT3N1M0 | 32 | Anastomosis |
| 2 | M | No | 10 | pT1N0M0 | 61 | Pelvic lymph nodes |
| 3 | M | No | 4 | pT3N0M0 | 25 | Anastomosis |
| 4 | M | Yes | 5 | PCR | 10 | Pelvic lymph nodes |
| 5 | F | No | 6 | pT2N1M0 | 40 | Pelvic lymph nodes |
CRT, chemoradiotherapy; DFS, disease‐free survival; DRM, distal resection margin; F, female; LR, local recurrence; M, male; PCR, pathological complete remission.
Before propensity‐score matching, the disease‐free survival (DFS) rate was 92.8% in patients with a DRM of ≤1 cm group and 81.3% in patients with a DRM of >1 cm group (P = 0.128). The overall survival (OS) rate at 5 years was 83.7% in the DRM of ≤1 cm group and 82.2% in the DRM of >1 cm group (P = 0.892; Fig. 1). After propensity‐score matching, there were also no significant differences in DFS (88.1% versus 78.2%, P = 0.162) and OS (84.5% versus 84.9%, P = 0.420) between the DRM of ≤1 cm group (n = 65) and the DRM of >1 cm group (n = 65), respectively (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.
Overall survival (OS) and disease‐free survival (DFS) related to the length of the DRM. Before propensity‐score matching, no significant differences in the 5‐year DFS (a) and 5‐year OS (b) were observed in the DRM of ≤1 and >1 cm groups. After propensity‐score matching, there were also no significant differences in the 5‐year DFS (c) and 5‐year OS d between the DRM of ≤1 and >1 cm groups. DRM, distal resection margin.
Subgroup analysis of OS stratified by DRM and the use of NCRT
A total of 44 patients received preoperative CRT. In this cohort, the 5‐year LR rates were similar between the DRM of ≤1 cm group and the DRM of >1 cm group (8.3% versus 1.9%, P = 0.118). The estimated 5‐year DFS rate was not significantly different between the two groups (83.3% versus 68.8%, P = 0.298; Table 5, Fig. 2).
Table 5.
Kaplan–Meier estimates of 5‐year LR and 5‐year DFS stratified by DRM and NCRT
| Variable | Group (n) | No. of events (%) | P (log‐rank) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCRT (n = 44) | LR | DRM ≤1 cm (12) | 1 (8.3) | 0.118 |
| DRM >1 cm (32) | 6 (1.9) | |||
| DFS | DRM ≤1 cm (12) | 10 (83.3) | 0.298 | |
| DRM >1 cm (32) | 22 (68.8) | |||
| Surgery alone (n = 334) | LR | DRM ≤1 cm (62) | 0 (0.0) | 0.150 |
| DRM >1 cm (272) | 10 (3.7) | |||
| DFS | DRM ≤1 cm (62) | 55 (93.5) | 0.172 | |
| DRM >1 cm (272) | 226 (83.8) |
DFS, disease‐free survival; DRM, distal resection margin; LR, local recurrence; NCRT, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
Fig. 2.
Local recurrence (LR) and disease‐free survival (DFS) of patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (stratified by distal margin of ≤1 cm). No significant differences in LR (a) and 5‐year DFS (b) were observed in the DRM of ≤1 and >1 cm groups. DRM, distal resection margin.
Three hundred and thirty‐four patients received surgery alone without NCRT. Consistent with the neoadjuvant chemoradiation group, there were also no significant differences in LR rate (0% versus 3.7%, P = 0.150) and DFS (93.5% versus 83.8%, P = 0.172; Table 5, Fig. 3) between the DRM of ≤1 cm group (n = 62) and the DRM of >1 cm group (n = 272), respectively.
Fig. 3.
Local recurrence (LR) and disease‐free survival (DFS) of patients without neoadjuvant chemoradiation (stratified by distal margin of ≤1 cm). No significant differences in LR (a) and 5‐year DFS (b) were observed in the DRM of ≤1 and >1 cm groups. DRM, distal resection margin.
Discussion
The optimal length of DRM has not been determined during sphincter‐sparing surgery for patients with mid‐low rectal cancers due to the lack of evidence from high‐level randomized controlled studies. Therefore, the investigation of the effect of the DRM on the oncological results of the low‐lying rectal cancer patients is necessary and of important clinical significance.
The length of the DRM is mainly dependent on the tumour location in the rectum. In this study, the mean distance from the anal verge in the DRM of ≤1 cm group was shorter than that in the DRM of >1 cm group, similar to previous studies. 11 , 15 , 16 Meanwhile, we found that the proportion of patients with T1 and T2 stages in the DRM of ≤1 cm group was higher than that in the control group. Similarly, the proportion of patients with stage I and II in the DRM of ≤1 cm group was higher than that in the DRM of >1 cm group. This is because of case selection. This would favour a lower LR and distant metastasis rate in the DRM of ≤1 cm group, which was one of the reasons for performing propensity matching.
Overall, there were no significant differences in the 5‐year LR rate, 5‐year DFS and 5‐year OS between the two groups in this study. Similarly, a systemic review of 5574 rectal cancer patients conducted by Bujko et al. evaluated whether a DRM of <1 cm jeopardizes oncological safety. 17 They concluded that a DRM of <1 cm did not compromise oncological outcomes. Kang et al. reported that the 5‐year LR rate was 8.8% in the DRM of ≤1 cm group and 8.5% in the DRM of >1 cm group (P = 0.630). 16 Admittedly, the proportion of patients with a DRM of ≤5 mm in the DRM of ≤1 cm group is relatively low (25.7%, 19/74) in the present study, which may affect the results to a certain extent. We will further compare the survival differences between patients with a DRM of ≤5 mm and patients with a DRM of 5–10 mm.
Many studies attempted to define the narrowest sufficient DRM (5 mm, 8 mm, 1 cm and 2 cm) in patients with sphincter‐preserving surgery. 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 However, analysis of the impact of DRM on survival results was not well stratified by NCRT. A subgroup analysis of this study showed that there were no significant differences in the 5‐year LR and 5‐year DFS between the two groups. Similarly, Manegold et al. found that the 5‐year LR rate was 6.7% in patients with a DRM of <1 cm and 5.5% in patients with a DRM of ≥1 cm. 11
The effect of NCRT or preoperative chemotherapy on the degree of shrinkage and regression of the primary tumour may be different. Many studies showed that distal intramural spread greater than 1 cm was only in 0–5% of patients receiving NCRT. 20 , 21 , 22 However, Kondo et al. analysed 71 patients with low rectal carcinoma who received preoperative chemotherapy. 14 They found that 42 (59%) patients had distal spread. Distal spreads of 1–9 mm, 10–19 mm and ≥2 cm were observed in 27 (38%), 11 (15%) and four (6%) patients, respectively. The results of Kondo et al.'s study were significantly different from those of previous studies and the present study, mainly because their patients only received chemotherapy without radiotherapy. 20 , 21 , 22 The specific mechanism of the difference between preoperative CRT and preoperative chemotherapy on the distal spread was still unclear. It should be noted that for patients with high‐risk factors who underwent preoperative chemotherapy, a DRM of 1 cm may not be sufficient.
By subgroup analysis, a DRM of ≤1 cm did not compromise the oncological outcomes of patients who received TME surgery alone. The introduction and application of TME principle for advanced rectal cancer have significantly reduced LR and improved a safe DRM. 5 , 23 , 24 A study including 152 mid‐low rectal cancer patients with TME surgery alone reported that there were no significant differences in 10‐year recurrence rates between the DRM of ≤1 cm group and the DRM of >1 cm group (0.0% versus 3.6%, P = 0.27). 25
The present study has several drawbacks. First, data on the DRM distance were extracted from the pathology report and not measured by a fixed pathologist. Theoretically speaking, these data may have errors and cannot be verified repeatedly. Second, although the total sample size is large, the number of patients with a DRM of ≤1 cm group is small. Third, the proportion of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy was low. On one hand, doctors were more likely to recommend patients with tumour close to CRM or obvious lymph nodes metastasis to receive preoperative radiotherapy. On the other hand, some patients were unwilling to receive NCRT because of heavy financial burden, long treatment cycle and fear of increased post‐operative complications. In addition, not all specimens in this study were pinned. So, the length of DRM may be affected by different measurement methods.
Conclusions
No matter whether patients with mid‐low rectal cancers received NCRT, there were no significant differences in 5‐year LR rate, 5‐year DFS and 5‐year OS between the DRM of ≤1 cm group and the DRM of >1 cm group. When aiming to achieve at least a 1–2 cm distal clinical resection margin, a histological resection margin of <1 cm on the DRM, ignoring the donut, gave equivalent clinical outcomes to a DRM of >1 cm. Besides, low anterior resection with a subcentimetre DRM was more suitable in patients with low‐risk LR factors such as T2/T3 and negative CRM.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Author contributions
Chenghai Zhang: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; methodology; project administration; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Ming Cui: Data curation; investigation; supervision. Jiadi Xing: Data curation; resources; software; writing – review and editing. Hong Yang: Resources; software; supervision; validation. Xiangqian Su: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; project administration.
Supporting information
Figure S1. The distribution of patients with local recurrence in the distal resection margin of ≤1 cm group. Red bars represent recurrence cases.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos 81872022 and 81672439), Beijing Natural Science Foundation (No. 7162039) and Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research (CFH 2018‐2‐2153). We thank Dr Nan Zhang and Dr Zhendan Yao for assistance with the grammar and editing services.
C. Zhang MD; M. Cui MD; J. Xing MD; H. Yang MD; X. Su MD.
References
- 1. Zeng WG, Liu MJ, Zhou ZX, Wang ZJ. A distal resection margin of </=1 mm and rectal cancer recurrence after sphincter‐preserving surgery: the role of a positive distal margin in rectal cancer surgery. Dis. Colon Rectum 2017; 60: 1175–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Kapiteijn E et al. Radiotherapy does not compensate for positive resection margins in rectal cancer patients: report of a multicenter randomized trial. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2003; 55: 1311–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Baker JW, Margetts LH, Schutt RP. The distal and proximal margin of resection in carcinoma of the pelvic colon and rectum. Ann. Surg. 1955; 141: 693–706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Goligher JC, Dukes CE, Bussey HJ. Local recurrences after sphincter saving excisions for carcinoma of the rectum and rectosigmoid. Br. J. Surg. 1951; 39: 199–211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Martling AL, Holm T, Rutqvist LE, Moran BJ, Heald RJ, Cedemark B. Effect of a surgical training programme on outcome of rectal cancer in the County of Stockholm. Stockholm Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Basingstoke Bowel Cancer Research Project. Lancet 2000; 356: 93–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. van Gijn W, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer: 12‐year follow‐up of the multicentre, randomised controlled TME trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12: 575–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Richard CS, Phang PT, McLeod RS; Canadian Association of General Surgeons Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery Group . Canadian Association of General Surgeons Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery. 5. Need for preoperative radiation in rectal cancer. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. Can. J. Surg. 2003; 46: 54–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID et al. Preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision for resectable rectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001; 345: 638–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Hida K, Okamura R, Sakai Y et al. Open versus laparoscopic surgery for advanced low rectal cancer: a large, multicenter, propensity score matched cohort study in Japan. Ann. Surg. 2018; 268: 318–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Park IJ, Kim JC. Adequate length of the distal resection margin in rectal cancer: from the oncological point of view. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2010; 14: 1331–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Manegold P, Taukert J, Neeff H, Fichtner‐Feigl S, Thomusch O. The minimum distal resection margin in rectal cancer surgery and its impact on local recurrence – a retrospective cohort analysis. Int. J. Surg. 2019; 69: 77–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Rutkowski A, Bujko K, Nowacki MP et al. Distal bowel surgical margin shorter than 1 cm after preoperative radiation for rectal cancer: is it safe? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008; 15: 3124–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Nash GM, Weiss A, Dasgupta R, Gonen M, Guillem JG, Wong WD. Close distal margin and rectal cancer recurrence after sphincter‐preserving rectal resection. Dis. Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 1365–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Kondo A, Tsukada Y, Kojima M et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on distal spread of low rectal cancer located close to the anus. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2018; 33: 1685–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Kiran RP, Lian L, Lavery IC. Does a subcentimeter distal resection margin adversely influence oncologic outcomes in patients with rectal cancer undergoing restorative proctectomy? Dis. Colon Rectum 2011; 54: 157–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Kang DW, Kwak HD, Sung NS et al. Oncologic outcomes in rectal cancer patients with a </=1‐cm distal resection margin. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2017; 32: 325–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Bujko K, Rutkowski A, Chang GJ, Michalski W, Chmielik E, Kusnierz J. Is the 1‐cm rule of distal bowel resection margin in rectal cancer based on clinical evidence? A systematic review. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012; 19: 801–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Kim YW, Kim NK, Min BS et al. Factors associated with anastomotic recurrence after total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2009; 99: 58–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Moore HG, Riedel E, Minsky BD et al. Adequacy of 1‐cm distal margin after restorative rectal cancer resection with sharp mesorectal excision and preoperative combined‐modality therapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2003; 10: 80–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Guillem JG, Chessin DB, Shia J et al. A prospective pathologic analysis using whole‐mount sections of rectal cancer following preoperative combined modality therapy: implications for sphincter preservation. Ann. Surg. 2007; 245: 88–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Mezhir JJ, Smith KD, Fichera A, Hart J, Posner MC, Hurst RD. Presence of distal intramural spread after preoperative combined‐modality therapy for adenocarcinoma of the rectum: what is now the appropriate distal resection margin? Surgery 2005; 138: 658–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Stocchi L, Nelson H, Sargent DJ et al. Impact of surgical and pathologic variables in rectal cancer: a United States community and cooperative group report. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001; 19: 3895–902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Karanjia ND, Schache DJ, North WR, Heald RJ. 'Close shave' in anterior resection. Br. J. Surg. 1990; 77: 510–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Heald RJ, Ryall RD. Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1986; 1: 1479–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. MERCURY Study Group , Shihab OC, Taylor F et al. Relevance of magnetic resonance imaging‐detected pelvic sidewall lymph node involvement in rectal cancer. Br. J. Surg. 2011; 98: 1798–804. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Figure S1. The distribution of patients with local recurrence in the distal resection margin of ≤1 cm group. Red bars represent recurrence cases.