Variations in the definition and perceived importance of positive resection margins in patients with colorectal cancer - an EYSAC international survey.

INTRODUCTION: Microscopically positive resection margins (R1) are associated with poorer outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer. However, different definitions of R1 margins exist. It is unclear to what extent the definitions used in everyday clinical practice differ within and between nations. This study sought to investigate variations in the definition of R1 margins in colorectal cancer and the importance of margin status in clinical decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 14-point survey was developed by members of The European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) Youngs Surgeons and Alumni Club (EYSAC) Research Academy targeting all members of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) treating patients with colorectal cancer. The survey was distributed on social media, in ESSO's monthly newsletter and via national societies. RESULTS: In total, 137 responses were received. Most respondents were from Europe (89.7%), with the majority from Denmark (56.9%). Less than 2/3 of respondents defined R1 margins as the presence of viable cancer cells ≤1 mm of the margin. Only 60% reported that subdivisions of R1 margins (primary tumour vs tumour deposit vs metastatic lymph node) are routinely available. More than 20% of respondents reported that pathology reports are not routinely reviewed at MDT meetings. Less than half of respondents considered margin status in decision-making for type and duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage III colon cancer. CONCLUSION: The definitions and perceived clinical importance of microscopically positive margins in patients with colorectal cancer appear to vary. Adoption of an international dataset for pathology reporting may help to standardise current practices.

Differences in adjuvant chemotherapy and oncological outcomes according to margin status in patients with stage III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Microscopically positive margins to lymph node metastases (R1LNM) are associated with poorer oncological outcomes in patients with Stage 3 colon cancer. These poorer outcomes were seen despite a greater proportion of these patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy when compared to those with microscopically negative (R0) margins. We sought to determine if differences in the type or duration of adjuvant chemotherapy could account for the differences in outcomes seen between patients with R0 and R1LNM margins. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective study including patients undergoing surgery for Stage 3 colon cancer between 2016-2019 at specialist centres. Patients were stratified according to margins status (R0 vs R1LNM). Type/duration of chemotherapy and oncological outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: 718 patients were included, of whom 100 had R1LNM margins (13.1%). Patients with R1LNM margins had significantly poorer 3-year distant metastases-free (R0 78.2% (95% CI 74.5-81.3) versus R1LNM 58.8% (95% CI 47.2-68.6), p < 0.001) and disease specific survival (R0 88.3% (95% CI 85.2-90.9) versus R1LNM 78.5% (95% CI 68.0-85.8), p < 0.001) when compared to those with R0 margins. No differences were noted in the proportion of patients who completed long-course chemotherapy or were treated with oxaliplatin-based combinations between the R1LNM and R0 groups. Differences in outcomes between R0 and R1LNM groups persisted even when only those patients who completed long-course chemotherapy were compared. DISCUSSION: Differences in adjuvant chemotherapy do not appear to account for the poorer oncological outcomes seen in patients with R1LNM margins after surgery for Stage 3 colon cancer. This suggests that adjuvant chemotherapy may be less effective in this patient group. Further studies to elucidate a potential biological basis for this difference are warranted.