0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

Genetic and Histological Assessment of Surgical Margins in Resected Liver Metastases From Colorectal Carcinoma:  Minimum Surgical Margins for Successful Resection FREE

Norihiro Kokudo, MD; Yoshio Miki, MD; Sachiko Sugai, MS; Akio Yanagisawa, MD; Yo Kato, MD; Yoshihiro Sakamoto, MD; Junji Yamamoto, MD; Toshiharu Yamaguchi, MD; Tetsuichiro Muto, MD; Masatoshi Makuuchi, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, University of Tokyo (Drs Kokudo and Makuuchi), Department of Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital (Drs Kokudo, Sakamoto, Yamamoto, Yamaguchi, and Muto), Department of Human Genome Analysis, Cancer Chemotherapy Center (Dr Miki and Ms Sugai), and Department of Pathology, Cancer Institute (Drs Yanagisawa and Kato), Tokyo, Japan.


Arch Surg. 2002;137(7):833-840. doi:10.1001/archsurg.137.7.833.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Hypothesis  There have been few reports on the minimum surgical margins (SMs) required for successful liver resection in patients with colorectal metastases. This minimum requirement may be narrower than the previously recommended margin of 10 mm.

Objectives  To identify the minimum margins by assessing the presence of micrometastases around the tumor using genetic and histological techniques, and to investigate whether SMs are associated with patterns of tumor recurrence or patient survival.

Design  Prospective and retrospective studies.

Setting  Tertiary referral cancer center.

Patients and Methods  Fifty-eight patients who underwent 62 liver resections for hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer between December 1, 1996, and November 30, 2000, were included in the study. Tissue samples taken from the tumor, surrounding liver parenchyma, and Glisson pedicle near the tumor were tested for K-ras and p53 mutations using the mutant allele–specific amplification method. For the retrospective study on patient outcomes, 194 patients who had undergone liver resections between 1980 and 2000 were analyzed according to their SMs.

Results  Of the 62 sets of samples from liver metastases, 39 were positive for K-ras and p53 gene mutations or both. Micrometastases in the liver parenchyma surrounding colorectal metastases were present in 2.0% (4/199) of tested samples and were located within 4 mm of the tumor border. Micrometastases via Glisson pedicle were more common (14.3% [3/21]), but these were also confined to a short distance from the tumor edge (≤5 mm). Of the 5 micrometastases detected by genetic analysis, only 2 were confirmed by histopathological examination. The analysis of patient outcomes demonstrated that the incidence of cut-end recurrence (relapse in the bed of resection) decreased from 20.0% to a range of 5.6% to 7.5% when the SM is 2 mm or more. The incidence of definite cut-end recurrence in patients with SMs less than 2 m, 2 to 4 mm, and 5 mm or wider was 13.3% (6/45), 2.8% (1/36), and 0% (0/102), respectively. The SM was not a significant prognostic factor in patient survival.

Conclusions  Micrometastases around liver tumors are not common, and most are confined to the immediate vicinity of the tumor border. We propose an SM of 2 mm as a clinically acceptable minimum requirement, which carries approximately a 6% risk of margin-related recurrence. Because liver resection provides the only chance of cure, complete removal of the tumor with a minimum margin is justified when technically unavoidable because of the size, location, number of tumors, or successive resections.

Figures in this Article

ALTHOUGH SURGICAL margins (SMs) wider than 10 mm have been recommended for hepatic resection for colorectal metastases,13 this is not always achievable when multiple lesions are present or when they are located deep inside the liver and close to major vessels. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for patients who undergo liver resection with minimum margins to survive without recurrence. There have been few reports4,5 on the minimum SMs required for successful liver resection. This may have limited the application of surgical techniques for colorectal liver metastases that cannot yet be cured by other treatment modalities.6

Using a sensitive method for detecting K-ras and p53 mutations in DNA samples, investigators have recently identified micrometastases in tissue samples that appeared to be tumor-free by routine histopathological examination.7,8 The mutant allele–specific amplification method is capable of detecting a single tumor cell containing genetic changes in a sample containing thousands of normal cells. We hypothesized that this powerful genetic analysis might detect tumor infiltration or micrometastases around liver metastases and provide useful information regarding minimum requirements for SMs.

We conducted a prospective study to assess the presence of micrometastases around the tumors using genetic and histological techniques. We also retrospectively investigated whether SMs are associated with patterns of tumor recurrence or patient survival in a single-institution series.

Between December 1, 1996, and November 30, 2000, 63 patients underwent 72 liver resections for colorectal metastases with curative intent at Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. Of these, 58 patients (62 hepatectomies) were prospectively assigned to the present study after informed consent had been obtained. Ten resections were excluded because of positive SMs (9 patients) or multiple tumors (1 patient, >10 tumors). There were 36 men and 22 women, aged 35 to 78 years (mean, 60.1 years). The primary site was the colon in 42 patients and the rectum in 16. The mean ± SEM number of tumors, maximum diameter of tumors, and macroscopic SMs were 2.2 ± 0.2 (range, 1-9), 4.3 ± 0.4 cm (range, 0.7-18.0 cm), and 5.8 ± 0.6 mm (range, 0-25 mm), respectively. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients for genetic analysis of resected specimens.

For the retrospective study on patient outcomes, 215 patients who had undergone liver resection for colorectal metastases between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 2000, were selected from our database. Of these, 194 patients with operative extrahepatic metastases had undergone surgery with curative intent. The remaining patients were excluded because of residual tumor of the liver in 6, concomitant lung metastases in 7, para-aortic lymph node metastases in 4, peritoneal dissemination in 3, and inguinal lymph node metastases in 1. There were 108 men and 86 women, aged 35 to 82 years (mean, 59.0 years). The primary site was the colon in 137 patients and the rectum in 57. The SM was not clearly documented in 11 patients, who were excluded from the study. The remaining patients were divided into 4 groups according to the macroscopic width of the SM: group 1, less than 2 mm (45 patients); group 2, 2 to 4 mm (36 patients); group 3, 5 to 9 mm (53 patients); and group 4, 10 mm or more (49 patients). Of these 183 patients, 3 (1.6%) had macroscopic tumor thrombus in the portal branch, 5 (2.7%) had metastases in the intrahepatic bile duct, and 1 patient (0.5%) had disease in both locations. In such cases, the SM was measured between the proximal edge of the thrombus and the bed of resection. Patient survival, disease-free survival, and site of recurrence after liver resection were evaluated.

DETECTION OF GENETIC ALTERATIONS IN LIVER METASTASES

Resected specimens were cut in the plane that included the maximum cross section of the tumor. The specimens were divided into 2 parts, one of which was fixed in 17% formaldehyde and submitted for histopathological examination. From the remaining halves, approximately 4 × 3 × 3-mm cubic specimens were dissected from the tumor (T1 and T2), surrounding liver parenchyma (N1 and higher), and Glisson pedicle (G) when it appeared on the cut surface. T1 and T2 were randomly sampled from viable parts of the tumor. Best sampling sites for N1 and higher were selected in a systematic manner as shown in Figure 1. All of the dissected specimens were immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C. DNA was extracted from the frozen tissue as described elsewhere.9 In patients with multiple metastatic lesions, the evaluation was performed in the cross section of the largest tumor.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Schematic drawing of sampling sites for genetic examination. Approximately 4 × 3 × 3-mm cubic specimens were dissected from the tumor (T1 and T2), the surrounding liver parenchyma (N1 and higher), and Glisson capsule (G, dashed rectangle) when it appeared on the cut surface. T1 and T2 were randomly sampled from viable parts of the tumor. Best sampling sites for N1 and higher were selected in a systematic manner as shown in this figure.

Graphic Jump Location

Codons 12 and 13 of the K-ras gene were examined by the mutant allele–specific amplification method as described previously.10 The 3′-ends of 20–base pair oligonucleotides used as polymerase chain reaction primers corresponded to variants of the first or second nucleotides of K-ras codons 12 and 13. DNA sequences corresponding to exons 5, 6, 7, and 8 of p53 were amplified by polymerase chain reaction, and the products were sequenced as described by Miyoshi et al.11

GENETIC ASSESSMENT OF MICROMETASTASES IN THE LIVER PARENCHYMA AND GLISSON PEDICLE

To find corresponding genetic alterations in the liver parenchyma or Glisson pedicle where mutations had been identified in metastatic tumors, we synthesized mutant allele–specific amplification primers with 3′-ends corresponding to each variant and amplified the respective sample DNA (N1 and higher and G) by polymerase chain reaction using these primers.7

HISTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF MICROMETASTASES IN THE LIVER PARENCHYMA AND GLISSON PEDICLE

Histological examination was done in the same cross section as was genetic analysis, using the other half of the divided specimens. Tumors and surrounding liver parenchyma were examined by conventional histopathological examination after hematoxylin-eosin staining. Micrometastasis was histologically defined as microscopically detectable tumor nests without direct connection to a tumor edge of the intrahepatic metastases.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

All values represent the mean±SEM. The Mann-Whitney test or Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare group data. The χ2 test was used for categorical data. The level of significance was established at P<.05. Survival time was calculated from the date of hepatic resection until death. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and were then compared using the Breslow-Gehan-Wilcoxon test. A multivariate stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (backward elimination method)12 was performed to identify factors that were independently associated with survival and disease-free survival after liver resection. Commercially available software (SPSS, version 6.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill) was used for statistical analysis.

K-ras AND p53 MUTATIONS IN METASTATIC LESIONS IN THE LIVER

Of the 62 sets of samples from liver metastases, 15 (24.2%) were positive for K-ras mutation (codon 12, 14 cases and codon 13, 1 case) and 31 (50.0%) were positive for p53 mutation (exon 5, 8 cases; exon 6, 7 cases; exon 7, 9 cases; and exon 8, 7 cases). Overall, 39 sets of samples (62.9%) were positive for K-ras or p53 mutation or both, and these were analyzed for the remainder of the study.

GENETIC ASSESSMENT OF HEPATIC PARENCHYMA AND GLISSON PEDICLE AROUND LIVER METASTASES

One hundred ninety-nine samples were harvested from documented noncancerous hepatic parenchyma surrounding liver tumors from 39 patients whose tumors had mutations in the K-ras or p53 genes or in both (N1 and higher, Figure 1). Sampling sites (distance from the edge of the tumor) were distributed as shown in Figure 2. Four samples (2.0%) from 2 patients contained tumor cells that had the same genetic alterations as were detected in the metastatic lesions in the liver. The positive samples were harvested within 4 mm of the tumor border. One of these was confirmed by conventional histological examination.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Distribution of sampling sites in hepatic parenchyma for genetic examination. One hundred ninety-nine samples were harvested from documented noncancerous hepatic parenchyma surrounding liver tumors from 39 patients whose tumors had mutations in the K-ras or p53 genes or in both. Shaded bars indicate samples containing tumor cells with the same genetic alterations as were detected in the metastatic lesions in the liver.

Graphic Jump Location

Twenty-one samples were harvested from Glisson pedicle, which appeared on the cut surface (G, Figure 1) in 21 patients with positive genetic mutations in metastatic tumors. There was no macroscopically identifiable Glisson pedicle on the cut surface in the remaining 18 patients. Sampling sites were distributed between 2 and 25 mm from the tumor border (Figure 3). Three samples (14.3%) were genetically positive for cancer and were harvested within 5 mm of the edge of the tumor. One of these was confirmed by histological examination.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Distribution of sampling sites in Glisson pedicle for genetic examination. Twenty-one samples were harvested from Glisson pedicle that appeared on the cut surface from 21 patients with genetic mutations in metastatic tumors. Shaded bars indicate samples containing tumor cells with the same genetic alterations as were detected in the metastatic lesions.

Graphic Jump Location
HISTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF NONCANCEROUS HEPATIC PARENCHYMA AND GLISSON PEDICLE

Histological micrometastases were found in 15 patients (24.2%) (Figure 4). All of the micrometastases were found within 5 mm of the tumor border. Of these, 2 were confirmed by genetic analysis (Figure 5). In the remaining patients, samples for genetic analysis were not taken from the corresponding area, primarily because of the close proximity to the edge of the tumor.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Histopathological findings of micrometastases. A tiny metastatic lesion was noted 3 mm from the main tumor.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 5.

Distribution of micrometastases detected by conventional histopathological examination. Micrometastases were found in 15 patients (24.2%). All micrometastases were found within 5 mm of the tumor border. Shaded bars indicate patients whose micrometastases were confirmed by genetic examination.

Graphic Jump Location
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA IN THE RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

Patient characteristics in groups 1 through 4 are summarized in Table 1. There was no significant difference among the 4 groups in patient age, sex, primary site (colon vs rectum), temporal relationship (synchronous vs metachronous), or surgical procedure (limited resection, single segmentectomy of Healey and Schroy,13 or bisegmentectomy or more). There were significant differences among the 4 groups in lobar involvement (unilobar vs bilobar) and number of tumors. Bilobar distribution and a greater number of tumors were associated with significantly narrower SMs. Differences in tumor size and presence of extrahepatic disease were marginally not significant among groups 1 through 4.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Patient Characteristics According to Surgical Margin (SM)*
SITE OF RECURRENCE RELATIVE TO SM

After a median follow-up of 29.1 months, 107 patients (58.5%) developed recurrence inside or outside the liver. The overall recurrence rate and recurrence rate in the liver were not statistically different among the 4 groups, although group 4 (margins ≥10 mm) tended to have better results.

Cut-end recurrence was defined as a relapse in the bed of resection. The location of relapsing tumors and the bed of previous resection were identified by computed tomography or intraoperative inspection. Cut-end recurrence was considered definite when the 2 locations matched. Cut-end recurrence was suspected when the 2 locations were within the same Couinaud segment14 but not in the same location.

Cut-end recurrence, including suspected cases, developed in 20.0% of patients with SMs narrower than 2 mm, whereas the incidence of cut-end recurrence was 5.6% to 7.5% in patients with margins from 2 to 9 mm. There was no cut-end recurrence in patients with SMs 10 mm or wider. The incidence of definite cut-end recurrence in patients with SMs of less than 2 mm, 2 to 4 mm, and 5 mm or wider was 13.3% (6/45), 2.8% (1/36), and 0% (0/102), respectively. Overall, there were 15 patients (8.2%) in whom cut-end recurrence was the only treatment failure after liver resection (Table 2). Of these, 9 patients underwent a second liver resection, with a 3-year survival of 57.1%. The 5-year survival after the first hepatic resection was 53.6%.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Pattern of Recurrence According to Macroscopic Surgical Margin (SM)
SURVIVAL AFTER LIVER RESECTION AND PROGNOSTIC FACTORS

The overall 5-year and disease-free survival rates were 41.9% and 29.7%, respectively. There were no significant differences in patient survival among groups 1 through 4 (P = .90) (Figure 6). However, there were marginally significant differences in disease-free survival (P = .054, group 4 vs groups 1 through 3) (Figure 7).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 6.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer according to the surgical margin (SM). There was no significant difference in patient survival among groups 1 through 4.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 7.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of disease-free survival after hepatic resection according to the surgical margin (SM). There were marginally significant differences in disease-free survival (P = .054, group 4 vs groups 1-3).

Graphic Jump Location

Among the 8 possible prognostic factors studied, univariate analysis showed a significant difference in patient survival based on the primary site (colon vs rectum), tumor size, and presence of extrahepatic disease (Table 3). Multivariate analysis identified 6 independently significant variables: tumor size, primary site, temporal relationship (synchronous vs metachronous), number of tumors, presence of extrahepatic disease, and tumor distribution (unilobar vs bilobar) (Table 4). The SM was not a significant prognostic factor in patient survival.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Univariate Analysis for the Prognostic Factors After Liver Resection*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Multivariate Analysis for Survival

Univariate analysis of disease-free survival showed a significant difference in primary site, temporal relationship, tumor size, and presence of extrahepatic disease. The SM was marginally not significant (P = .10) (Table 3). Multivariate analysis identified 4 independently significant variables: presence of extrahepatic disease, temporal relationship, primary site, and tumor size (Table 5).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Multivariate Analysis for Disease-Free Survival

In the prospective study, the survival and disease-free survival rates in 15 patients with histological micrometastases were comparable or slightly better than those in 43 patients without micrometastases: 3-year survival, 100.0% vs 70.1%; and 2-year disease-free survival, 53.3% vs 32.3%, respectively.

Using a sensitive genetic analysis for detecting K-ras and p53 mutations, we found micrometastases in the liver parenchyma surrounding colorectal metastases. However, the incidence was as low as 2.0%, and they were located only in the immediate vicinity of the tumor (within 4 mm of the tumor border). Micrometastases via Glisson pedicle were more common (14.3%), but they were also confined to a short distance from the tumor edge (≤5 mm). Of the 5 micrometastases detected by genetic diagnosis, only 2 were confirmed by conventional histopathological examination.

These results are consistent with the relationship between SMs and patterns of recurrence. An analysis of patient outcomes demonstrated that the incidence of cut-end recurrence decreased from 20.0% to the range of 5.6% to 7.5% when the SM is 2 mm or more. The incidence of definite cut-end recurrence in patients with SMs of 2 to 4 mm and 5 mm or wider was 2.8% and 0%, respectively.

Because micrometastases detected in the present study were confined to the immediate vicinity of the main tumors, they may have originated from the closest main tumor, rather than from distant metastatic lesions or primary sites. Intrahepatic distant metastases are considered to be rare in colorectal metastases.15,16

Although many surgeons may try to achieve SMs as wide as possible during hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, there has been no concrete evidence regarding how much margin is necessary for successful hepatectomy. Since the report of Hughes and coworkers,17 other authors15,1724 have noted the prognostic significance of the SM after liver resection for metastatic colorectal carcinoma (Table 6). Among these 14 reports, including the present study, only 4 stated that an SM 10 mm or wider was a favorable prognostic factor.13,23 Furthermore, SMs 10 mm or wider were achieved in a mean percentage of only 34.4% (range, 15.9%-54.9%) of patients.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Previous Reports on the Effects of Macroscopic Surgical Margins (SMs)

For positive margins (SM, 0 mm), 7 of the 14 reports indicated that a positive margin was associated with a significant or marginally significant unfavorable prognosis. Although patients with a positive margin may tend to have a recurrence at the cut end or may have other undesirable prognostic factors,23 the treatment failure that actually leads to patient death is not clear. Patients with a positive margin should not be considered inoperable, as the group 1 patients in our study had a chance of cure, with a 5-year survival of 34.7% (Figure 6).

We hypothesized that the minimum SM for successful liver resection without cut-end recurrence may lie somewhere between 0 mm and 10 mm. Based on the results summarized in Table 7, an SM of 2 mm appears to be a clinically acceptable minimum requirement, carrying an approximately 6% risk of margin-related recurrence. Gayowski4 and Ohlsson5 and their colleagues reported that patients with SMs 1 mm or wider, but less than 10 mm, had outcomes comparable to those of patients with SMs wider than 10 mm. However, considering the measurement error associated with a macroscopic SM, a margin of 1 mm may be too narrow for clinical use.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 7. Summary of Data on Surgical Margins*

If the SM is an independent significant prognostic factor, cut-end recurrence should be common in patients with a narrow margin, and this type of recurrence should lead to a poor outcome. Hughes et al18 reported that recurrence in the remnant liver was more common in patients with a positive margin (68% [25/37]) than in patients with a negative margin (38% [217/570]). Cady et al3 reported similar findings. However, these reports did not distinguish cut-end recurrences from other types of recurrence in the remnant liver. Bozetti et al25 reported that cut-end recurrence accounted for only 25% (4/16) of all recurrence in the remnant liver. Harned et al26 also reported a low incidence of cut-end recurrence, accounting for only 8% of all recurrences in the remnant liver. This rate was 21.7% (15/69) in the present study.

Consistent with previous reports,1,25,26 the SM did not affect the overall recurrence rate or the recurrence rate in the liver (Table 3). However, cut-end recurrence developed in 7.5% to 20.0% of patients with SMs narrower than 10 mm, whereas no recurrence was observed when SMs were wider than 10 mm. Cut-end recurrence was definite in 7 patients, and 5 of these had positive margins. Margins narrower than 10 mm may lead to cut-end recurrence, but the incidence in this study was only 8.2% (15 patients). Furthermore, 9 of these underwent a second hepatectomy, with a 3-year survival of 57.1%. Although cut-end recurrence is an undesirable treatment failure, its effect on patient survival is small. There have been no data on whether cut-end recurrence causes other types of remnant liver recurrence.

The higher prevalence of micrometastases via The Glisson pedicle may require further evaluation. Yamamoto et al15 reported 9 cases of colorectal metastases that had gross extension into The Glisson pedicle. Macroscopic invasion extended up to 23 mm from the tumor edge. Histopathological examination of multiple slices may be needed to evaluate microscopic tumor extension into The Glisson pedicle.

In conclusion, micrometastases around liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma are not common, and most are confined to the immediate vicinity of the tumor border. Cut-end recurrence after liver resection occurs in 5.6% to 7.5% of patients whose SM is 2 mm or more, but the incidence of definite cut-end recurrence was less than 3% with a margin of this width. We propose an SM of 2 mm as a clinically acceptable minimum requirement, carrying approximately a 6% risk of margin-related recurrence. However, the SM itself is not an independent significant prognostic factor after liver resection, but rather is probably in concert with other factors, including the number of tumors, tumor distribution, and extrahepatic disease. Because liver resection provides the only chance of cure, complete removal of the tumor with a minimum margin is justified when technically unavoidable based on the size, location, or number of tumors. Hepatic resections with SMs narrower than 2 mm are acceptable, especially for patients with multiple liver metastases.

Corresponding author and reprints: Norihiro Kokudo, MD, Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan 113-8655 (e-mail: kokudo-2su@h.u-tokyo.ac.jp).

Ekberg  HTranberg  KGAndersson  R  et al.  Pattern of recurrence in liver resection for colorectal secondaries. World J Surg. 1987;11541- 547
Link to Article
Scheele  JStangl  RAltendorf-Hofmann  A Hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma: impact of surgical resection on the natural history. Br J Surg. 1990;771241- 1246
Link to Article
Cady  BStone  MDMcDermott  WV  et al.  Technical and biological factors in disease-free survival after hepatic resection for colorectal cancer metastases. Arch Surg. 1992;127561- 569
Link to Article
Gayowski  TJIwatsuki  SMadariaga  JR  et al.  Experience in hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of clinical and pathological risk factors. Surgery. 1994;116703- 711
Ohlsson  BStenram  UTranberg  KG Resection of colorectal liver metastases: 25-year experience. World J Surg. 1998;22268- 277
Link to Article
Minagawa  MMakuuchi  MTorzilli  G  et al.  Extension of the frontiers of surgical indications in the treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: long-term results. Ann Surg. 2000;231487- 499
Link to Article
Hayashi  NArakawa  HNagase  H  et al.  Genetic diagnosis identifies occult lymph node metastases undetectable by the histopathological method. Cancer Res. 1994;543853- 3856
Hayashi  NIto  IYanagisawa  AKato  Y  et al.  Genetic diagnosis of lymph-node metastasis in colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1995;3451257- 1259
Link to Article
Sato  TTanigami  AYamakawa  K  et al.  Allotype of breast cancer: cumulative allele losses promote tumor progression in primary breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1990;507184- 7189
Takeda  SIchii  SNakamura  Y Detection of K-ras mutation in sputum by mutant-allele–specific amplification (MASA). Hum Mutat. 1993;2112- 117
Link to Article
Miyoshi  YNagase  HAndo  H  et al.  Somatic mutations of the APC gene in colorectal tumors: mutation cluster region in the APC gene. Hum Mol Genet. 1992;1229- 233
Link to Article
Cox  DR Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B. 1972;34187- 220
Healey  JESchroy  PC Anatomy of the biliary ducts within the human liver: analysis of the prevailing pattern of branchings and the major variations of the biliary ducts. Arch Surg. 1953;66599- 616
Link to Article
Couinaud  C Lobes et segments hépatiques: notes sur l'architecture anatomique et chirurgicale du foie. Presse Med. 1954;62709- 712
Yamamoto  JSugihara  KKosuge  T  et al.  Pathologic support for limited hepatectomy in the treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 1995;22174- 78
Link to Article
Kokudo  NTada  KSeki  M  et al.  Anatomical major resection versus nonanatomical limited resection for liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2001;181153- 159
Link to Article
Hughes  KSSimon  RSonghorabodi  S  et al.  Resection of the liver for colorectal carcinoma: a multi-institutional study of patterns of recurrence. Surgery. 1986;100278- 284
Hughes  KSRosenstein  RBSonghorabodi  S  et al.  Resection of the liver for colorectal carcinoma metastases: a multi-institutional study of long-term survivors. Dis Colon Rectum. 1988;311- 4
Link to Article
Rosen  CNagorney  DMTaswell  HF  et al.  Perioperative blood transfusion and determinants of survival after liver resection for metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Ann Surg. 1992;216493- 505
Link to Article
Nakamura  SYoyogi  YSuzuki  SBaba  SMuro  H Results of extensive surgery for liver metastases in colorectal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 1992;7935- 38
Link to Article
Wang  JYChiang  JMJeng  LBChangchien  CRChen  JSHsu  KC Resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: are there any truly significant prognosticators? Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39847- 851
Link to Article
Jamison  RLDonohue  JHNagorney  DMRosen  CBHarmsen  WSIlstrup  DM Hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer results in cure for some patients. Arch Surg. 1997;132505- 511
Link to Article
Elias  DCavalcanti  ASabourin  JC  et al.  Resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: the real impact of the surgical margin. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1998;24174- 179
Link to Article
Yamamoto  JShimada  KKosuge  TYamasaki  SSakamoto  MFukuda  H Factors influencing survival of patients undergoing hepatectomy for colorectal metastases. Br J Surg. 1999;86332- 337
Link to Article
Bozetti  FBignami  PMorabito  ADoci  RGennari  L Patterns of failure following surgical resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Ann Surg. 1987;205264- 270
Link to Article
Harned  RK  IIChezmar  JLNelson  RC Recurrent tumor after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma: location and time of discovery as determined by CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;16393- 97
Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Schematic drawing of sampling sites for genetic examination. Approximately 4 × 3 × 3-mm cubic specimens were dissected from the tumor (T1 and T2), the surrounding liver parenchyma (N1 and higher), and Glisson capsule (G, dashed rectangle) when it appeared on the cut surface. T1 and T2 were randomly sampled from viable parts of the tumor. Best sampling sites for N1 and higher were selected in a systematic manner as shown in this figure.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Distribution of sampling sites in hepatic parenchyma for genetic examination. One hundred ninety-nine samples were harvested from documented noncancerous hepatic parenchyma surrounding liver tumors from 39 patients whose tumors had mutations in the K-ras or p53 genes or in both. Shaded bars indicate samples containing tumor cells with the same genetic alterations as were detected in the metastatic lesions in the liver.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Distribution of sampling sites in Glisson pedicle for genetic examination. Twenty-one samples were harvested from Glisson pedicle that appeared on the cut surface from 21 patients with genetic mutations in metastatic tumors. Shaded bars indicate samples containing tumor cells with the same genetic alterations as were detected in the metastatic lesions.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Histopathological findings of micrometastases. A tiny metastatic lesion was noted 3 mm from the main tumor.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 5.

Distribution of micrometastases detected by conventional histopathological examination. Micrometastases were found in 15 patients (24.2%). All micrometastases were found within 5 mm of the tumor border. Shaded bars indicate patients whose micrometastases were confirmed by genetic examination.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 6.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer according to the surgical margin (SM). There was no significant difference in patient survival among groups 1 through 4.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 7.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of disease-free survival after hepatic resection according to the surgical margin (SM). There were marginally significant differences in disease-free survival (P = .054, group 4 vs groups 1-3).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Patient Characteristics According to Surgical Margin (SM)*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Pattern of Recurrence According to Macroscopic Surgical Margin (SM)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Univariate Analysis for the Prognostic Factors After Liver Resection*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Multivariate Analysis for Survival
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Multivariate Analysis for Disease-Free Survival
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Previous Reports on the Effects of Macroscopic Surgical Margins (SMs)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 7. Summary of Data on Surgical Margins*

References

Ekberg  HTranberg  KGAndersson  R  et al.  Pattern of recurrence in liver resection for colorectal secondaries. World J Surg. 1987;11541- 547
Link to Article
Scheele  JStangl  RAltendorf-Hofmann  A Hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma: impact of surgical resection on the natural history. Br J Surg. 1990;771241- 1246
Link to Article
Cady  BStone  MDMcDermott  WV  et al.  Technical and biological factors in disease-free survival after hepatic resection for colorectal cancer metastases. Arch Surg. 1992;127561- 569
Link to Article
Gayowski  TJIwatsuki  SMadariaga  JR  et al.  Experience in hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of clinical and pathological risk factors. Surgery. 1994;116703- 711
Ohlsson  BStenram  UTranberg  KG Resection of colorectal liver metastases: 25-year experience. World J Surg. 1998;22268- 277
Link to Article
Minagawa  MMakuuchi  MTorzilli  G  et al.  Extension of the frontiers of surgical indications in the treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: long-term results. Ann Surg. 2000;231487- 499
Link to Article
Hayashi  NArakawa  HNagase  H  et al.  Genetic diagnosis identifies occult lymph node metastases undetectable by the histopathological method. Cancer Res. 1994;543853- 3856
Hayashi  NIto  IYanagisawa  AKato  Y  et al.  Genetic diagnosis of lymph-node metastasis in colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1995;3451257- 1259
Link to Article
Sato  TTanigami  AYamakawa  K  et al.  Allotype of breast cancer: cumulative allele losses promote tumor progression in primary breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1990;507184- 7189
Takeda  SIchii  SNakamura  Y Detection of K-ras mutation in sputum by mutant-allele–specific amplification (MASA). Hum Mutat. 1993;2112- 117
Link to Article
Miyoshi  YNagase  HAndo  H  et al.  Somatic mutations of the APC gene in colorectal tumors: mutation cluster region in the APC gene. Hum Mol Genet. 1992;1229- 233
Link to Article
Cox  DR Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B. 1972;34187- 220
Healey  JESchroy  PC Anatomy of the biliary ducts within the human liver: analysis of the prevailing pattern of branchings and the major variations of the biliary ducts. Arch Surg. 1953;66599- 616
Link to Article
Couinaud  C Lobes et segments hépatiques: notes sur l'architecture anatomique et chirurgicale du foie. Presse Med. 1954;62709- 712
Yamamoto  JSugihara  KKosuge  T  et al.  Pathologic support for limited hepatectomy in the treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 1995;22174- 78
Link to Article
Kokudo  NTada  KSeki  M  et al.  Anatomical major resection versus nonanatomical limited resection for liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2001;181153- 159
Link to Article
Hughes  KSSimon  RSonghorabodi  S  et al.  Resection of the liver for colorectal carcinoma: a multi-institutional study of patterns of recurrence. Surgery. 1986;100278- 284
Hughes  KSRosenstein  RBSonghorabodi  S  et al.  Resection of the liver for colorectal carcinoma metastases: a multi-institutional study of long-term survivors. Dis Colon Rectum. 1988;311- 4
Link to Article
Rosen  CNagorney  DMTaswell  HF  et al.  Perioperative blood transfusion and determinants of survival after liver resection for metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Ann Surg. 1992;216493- 505
Link to Article
Nakamura  SYoyogi  YSuzuki  SBaba  SMuro  H Results of extensive surgery for liver metastases in colorectal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 1992;7935- 38
Link to Article
Wang  JYChiang  JMJeng  LBChangchien  CRChen  JSHsu  KC Resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: are there any truly significant prognosticators? Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39847- 851
Link to Article
Jamison  RLDonohue  JHNagorney  DMRosen  CBHarmsen  WSIlstrup  DM Hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer results in cure for some patients. Arch Surg. 1997;132505- 511
Link to Article
Elias  DCavalcanti  ASabourin  JC  et al.  Resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: the real impact of the surgical margin. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1998;24174- 179
Link to Article
Yamamoto  JShimada  KKosuge  TYamasaki  SSakamoto  MFukuda  H Factors influencing survival of patients undergoing hepatectomy for colorectal metastases. Br J Surg. 1999;86332- 337
Link to Article
Bozetti  FBignami  PMorabito  ADoci  RGennari  L Patterns of failure following surgical resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Ann Surg. 1987;205264- 270
Link to Article
Harned  RK  IIChezmar  JLNelson  RC Recurrent tumor after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal carcinoma: location and time of discovery as determined by CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;16393- 97
Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 131

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clinical Resolution

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clinical Scenario