Pelvic Diameter is not Associated with Positive Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer: Retrospective Analysis of 78 Cases

Abstract

Objective To identify if there is an association between pelvic entry and pelvic outlet diameters with increased positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) in rectal cancer.

Introduction Positive CRM in rectal cancer is a major predictor for local and distant recurrence. Pelvic diameters may be related to the difficulty of dissection, as well as intrinsic tumor characteristics such as tumor size, location, distance from the anal margin, and T stage, which may compromise the integrity of the mesorectum and circumferential margin involvement.

Methods A retrospective review of the patient's medical records who underwent surgical resection of rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2012 to June 2022 was performed. The patient's preoperative staging, operative characteristics, and histopathologic outcomes were gathered from the medical records. Preoperative MRI scanning was done in all patients. MRI pelvimetry was done by two observers. CRM involvement was recorded as stated in the pathology report. Pelvimetry variables were dichotomized according to their mean values for correlation analysis. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated from a binary logistics regression model to assess the relation between the positive CRM and the independent variables.

Results A total of 78 patients were included in this study. A positive CRM was reported in 10 patients (12.8%). BMI >27.4 + 6.6 (p = 0.02), positive extramural vascular invasion (p = 0.027), positive CRM by MRI scanning (p = 0.004), and anal sphincter involvement (p = 0.03) were associated with positive CRM. Pelvimetry values were not associated with a positive CRM.

Conclusion No association was found between the pelvic diameters measured by MRI pelvimetry with a positive CRM.

Keywords

magnetic resonance pelvimetry - pelvic outlet diameter - pelvimetry - circumferential resection margin - rectal cancer

Statement

What does this paper add to the literature?

This manuscript shows that no significant association between narrow margins in MRI pelvimetry and CRM involvement was found. Concluding that MRI pelvimetry dimensions are not associated with CRM involvement in rectal cancer surgery.

Ethics Approval

This study was approved by the hospital ethics committee. (CONBIOETICA-09-CEI-011–20160627)

This paper has not been presented in any meeting presentation. This paper is not currently under review by another journal. This paper has not been accepted for publication elsewhere.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 11. September 2023

Angenommen: 07. Februar 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
11. März 2024

• References

• 1 You YN, Hardiman KM, Bafford A. et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Rectal Cancer. Vol. 63. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum; 2020: 1191-1222
• 2 Zhou XC, Su M, Hu KQ. et al. CT pelvimetry and clinicopathological parameters in evaluation of the technical difficulties in performing open rectal surgery for mid-low rectal cancer. Oncol Lett 2016; 11 (01) 31-38
• 3 Heald RJ. The ‘Holy Plane’ of rectal surgery. J R Soc Med 1988; 81 (09) 503-508
• 4 Salerno G, Daniels IR, Brown G, Norman AR, Moran BJ, Heald RJ. Variations in pelvic dimensions do not predict the risk of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement in rectal cancer. World J Surg 2007; 31 (06) 1313-1320
• 5 Simon HL, de Paula TR, Profeta da Luz MM, Kiran RP, Keller DS. Predictors of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin in Rectal Cancer: A Current Audit of the National Cancer Database. Dis Colon Rectum 2021; 64 (09) 1096-1105
• 6 Nagtegaal ID, Quirke P. What is the role for the circumferential margin in the modern treatment of rectal cancer?. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26 (02) 303-312
• 7 Wibe A, Rendedal PR, Svensson E. et al. Prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2002; 89 (03) 327-334
• 8 Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM. et al. Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2022; 20 (10) 1139-1167
• 9 Brown G, Radcliffe AG, Newcombe RG, Dallimore NS, Bourne MW, Williams GT. Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in rectal cancer using high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Surg 2003; 90 (03) 355-364
• 10 de'Angelis N, Pigneur F, Martínez-Pérez A. et al; EuMaRCS Study Group. Predictors of surgical outcomes and survival in rectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: the interest of pelvimetry and restaging magnetic resonance imaging studies. Oncotarget 2018; 9 (38) 25315-25331
• 11 Mahadevan LS, Zhong J, Venkatesulu B. et al. Imaging predictors of treatment outcomes in rectal cancer: An overview. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2018; 129: 153-162
• 12 Youssef H, Collantes EC, Rashid SH, Wong LS, Baragwanath P. Rectal cancer: involved circumferential resection margin - a root cause analysis. Colorectal Dis 2009; 11 (05) 470-474
• 13 Boyle KM, Petty D, Chalmers AG. et al. MRI assessment of the bony pelvis may help predict resectability of rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2005; 7 (03) 232-240
• 14 Atasoy G, Arslan NC, Elibol FD, Sagol O, Obuz F, Sokmen S. Magnetic resonance-based pelvimetry and tumor volumetry can predict surgical difficulty and oncologic outcome in locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer. Surg Today 2018; 48 (12) 1040-1051
• 15 Chau J, Solomon J, Liberman AS, Charlebois P, Stein B, Lee L. Pelvic dimensions on preoperative imaging can identify poor-quality resections after laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid- and low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2020; 34 (10) 4609-4615
• 16 Gu J, Bo XF, Xiong CY. et al. Defining pelvic factors in sphincter-preservation of low rectal cancer with a three-dimensional digital model of pelvis. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49 (10) 1517-1526
• 17 de'Angelis N, Pigneur F, Martínez-Pérez A. et al; EuMaRCS Study Group. Assessing surgical difficulty in locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer: the accuracy of two MRI-based predictive scores. Colorectal Dis 2019; 21 (03) 277-286
• 18 Escal L, Nougaret S, Guiu B. et al. MRI-based score to predict surgical difficulty in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2018; 105 (01) 140-146
• 19 Birbeck KF, Macklin CP, Tiffin NJ. et al. Rates of circumferential resection margin involvement vary between surgeons and predict outcomes in rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2002; 235 (04) 449-457
• 20 Rickles AS, Dietz DW, Chang GJ. et al; Consortium for Optimizing the Treatment of Rectal Cancer (OSTRiCh). High rate of positive circumferential resection margins following rectal cancer surgery a call to action. Ann Surg 2015; 262 (06) 891-898
• 21 Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J. et al; MRC CR07/NCIC-CTG CO16 Trial Investigators, NCRI Colorectal Cancer Study Group. Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 2009; 373 (9666): 821-828
• 22 Killeen T, Banerjee S, Vijay V, Al-Dabbagh Z, Francis D, Warren S. Magnetic resonance (MR) pelvimetry as a predictor of difficulty in laparoscopic operations for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2010; 24 (12) 2974-2979
• 23 Baik SH, Kim NK, Lee KY. et al. Factors influencing pathologic results after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: analysis of consecutive 100 cases. Ann Surg Oncol 2008; 15 (03) 721-728
• 24 Hong JSY, Brown KGM, Waller J, Young CJ, Solomon MJ. The role of MRI pelvimetry in predicting technical difficulty and outcomes of open and minimally invasive total mesorectal excision: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol 2020; 24 (10) 991-1000