4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Surgical margins and risk of local recurrence after wedge resection of colorectal pulmonary metastases

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
卷 157, 期 4, 页码 1648-1655

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.10.156

关键词

wedge resection; metastasectomy; local recurrence; colorectal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: During resection of pulmonary metastases, the need to spare lung parenchyma is often weighed against the increased risk of local recurrence if an inadequate surgical margin is obtained. We sought to identify risk factors for local recurrence after wedge resection of pulmonary metastases of a colorectal origin. Methods: A retrospective study of patients who underwent a wedge resection for colorectal pulmonary metastases from 2006 to 2016 was performed. Cox regression with robust variance was used to estimate the risk of local recurrence per nodule treated. Results: We identified 335 patients who underwent 679 wedge resections. The 2-year local recurrence risk for each nodule was 11.8%(95% confidence interval, 8.9%-14.6%), and the 5-year risk was 20.6%(95% confidence interval, 16.2%-24.8%). Longer margin length decreased the risk of local recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.434 per additional cm of length; P = .015), whereas larger tumor size increased this risk (hazard ratio, 1.520 per additional cm of size; P = .012). However, other factors tested, including tumor grade, KRAS mutation status, and response to induction chemotherapy, did not affect recurrence risk. A pathologic margin length of at least half the tumor size was estimated to result in a local recurrence rate <11%. Conclusions: Among surgically resected colorectal pulmonary metastases, technical factors related to margin length and tumor size were associated with the risk of local recurrence, whereas tumor grade and KRAS status were not. However, the increased risk of local recurrence with larger tumors was diminished with a sufficient margin length.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据