4.5 Article

The Clinical Significance of Crohn Disease Activity at Resection Margins

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 143, Issue 4, Pages 505-509

Publisher

COLL AMER PATHOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0011-OA

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context.-Conflicting data about the clinical significance of microscopic Crohn disease (CD) activity at resection margins have led to varying practice patterns for routine reporting by pathologists. Objective.-To characterize the association between active disease at resection margins with postoperative CD recurrence and time-to-recurrence in the era of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Design.-We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 101 consecutive CD bowel resections during 10 years. Margin slides were reviewed, and CD activity at the margins was graded as none, mild, moderate, or severe. The association between microscopic CD activity at the margin with postoperative recurrence and time-to-recurrence were evaluated with logistic regression and Cox regression analyses, respectively. Results.-Crohn disease activity at resection margins was reported in 43% of pathology reports. Resection margins had CD involvement in 39.6% of cases, 20 of which were classified as mild, 6 as moderate, and 12 with severe CD activity. Although patients with mild (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.40-3.20) and moderate to severe (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.62-6.35) activity were at increased risk of disease recurrence, the differences were not statistically significant. Patients with mild (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50-1.91) and moderate to severe (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.65-2.55) disease activity at margins did not have significantly different time-torecurrence compared with those without disease activity. Conclusions.-Our study suggests CD activity at resection margins is not significantly associated with postoperative CD recurrence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available