Annals of Surgical Oncology Sign the Guestbook
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kuvshinoff, B.
Right arrow Articles by Ota, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kuvshinoff, B.
Right arrow Articles by Ota, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Surgery
Annals of Surgical Oncology 8:163-169 (2001)
© 2001 Society of Surgical Oncology

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Distal Margin Requirements After Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Distal Rectal Carcinomas: Are <= 1 cm Distal Margins Sufficient?

Boris Kuvshinoff, MD, Irfan Maghfoor, MD, Brent Miedema, MD, Mark Bryer, MD, Steven Westgate, MD, John Wilkes, MD and David Ota, MD

From the Departments of Surgery, Medical Oncology and Radiology, University of Missouri Ellis Fischel Cancer Center and Harry S. Truman VAMC, Columbia, Missouri.

Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Boris W. Kuvshinoff, MD, FACS, Ellis Fischel Cancer Center, 115 Business Loop 70 W, Columbia, MO 65203; Fax: 573-884-6054; E-mail: Kuvshinoffb{at}health.missouri.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Background: Sphincter-sparing alternatives to abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the treatment of rectal cancer often are underused out of concern for inadequate distal margins and local failure. The present study addresses whether sphincter-sparing techniques with distal margins <= 1 cm adversely influence oncological outcome in patients given preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Methods: Thirty-seven patients with rectal cancer <= 8 cm from the anal verge were enrolled in the study. Preoperative external beam radiotherapy (5400 Gy) was administered together with continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (300 mg/m2/day). Surgical resection was performed in 36 patients with pathological assessment of tumor response and margins. Patients with sphincter-sparing resection and distal margins > 1 cm or <= 1 cm and those who underwent APR were compared.

Results: Thirty-six patients completed preoperative chemoradiotherapy, with successful sphincter-preservation in 28 patients. At a median follow-up of 33 months, there were 12 recurrences overall, which included 11 distant failures and four pelvic failures. Disease-free survival (DFS) was not different between those who had an APR compared with sphincter-sparing resection with distal margins <= 1 cm. DFS was worse (P < .02) when radial margins were <= 3 mm compared with > 3 mm.

Conclusions: Sphincter preservation is feasible in more than 75% of patients with tumors <= 8 cm from the anal verge after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Sphincter-sparing surgery with distal margins <= 1 cm can be used without adversely influencing local recurrence or DFS. Limited radial margins (<= 3 mm), however, are associated with increased disease recurrence.

Key Words: Rectal cancer • Distal margins • Radiation therapy • Chemotherapy • Sphincter preservation


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The standard operative procedure for carcinoma of the lower rectum is an abdominoperineal resection (APR) with a permanent sigmoid colostomy. If sphincter preservation is a desirable goal, then a new treatment paradigm is needed. Recent studies have shown that there is considerable regression of rectal carcinomas with preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and this may offer an important adjunct for sphincter preservation.1–5 Advances in surgical technique that include total mesorectal excision (TME) with transanal transection and anastomosis also have improved local control and preservation of sphincter function.6,7 It would seem reasonable that if preoperative therapy can downstage rectal carcinomas significantly, then the use of TME with distal margin < 2 cm should not compromise local control and would permit sphincter preservation for many distal rectal cancers.

The purpose of this study was to determine if local recurrences and survival are affected adversely with a distal margin < 1 cm after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The regimen of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and concurrent external beam radiotherapy has been used successfully for both preoperative and postoperative adjuvant therapy in stage II and III rectal adenocarcinomas.5,8–15 Our aim was to use an aggressive preoperative chemoradiotherapy regimen to permit a sphincter-preserving operation in patients with rectal carcinoma who otherwise would require an APR, without compromising local disease control or disease-free survival.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Patient Eligibility Requirements
All eligible patients treated at the University of Missouri–Ellis Fischel Cancer Center, Harry S. Truman VAMC, and Mid-Missouri Medical Foundation between 1993 and 1997 who had biopsy-proven primary (n = 34) or recurrent (n = 3) rectal adenocarcinoma within 8 cm from the anal verge were enrolled in the study. These patients were judged by the attending surgeon to likely require an APR for adequate treatment. Initial evaluation included a complete history and physical, digital rectal exam, complete colonoscopy, rigid proctoscopy, chest x-ray, and computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis. Transrectal ultrasound data were available in only five patients late in the study period. Patients with distant metastases, severe comorbid disease, poor performance status (Zubrod > 2), concurrent malignancy other than skin cancer, or active alcohol abuse were ineligible for this trial. This protocol was approved by the University of Missouri Institutional Review Board and included informed patient consent.

Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy
External beam radiotherapy consisted of 6- or 15-MV photons generated by a linear accelerator with a target-to-axis distance of 100 cm. Patients were treated primarily with a three- or four-field plan on an open tabletop in the prone position, to exclude the small bowel from the radiation portal. The top of the field was placed at the sacral promontory, with lateral borders 1.5 cm outside the bony pelvis and the inferior margin 3 cm below gross tumor. A dose of 45 Gy was delivered, given at 1.8 Gy/day for 5 days a week in 25 fractions followed by a 9-Gy boost to the tumor in 5 fractions. Patients were seen weekly to assess tolerance, weight, and complete blood counts.

5-FU was administered concomitantly during the 6 weeks of radiation therapy. A central venous access device was used and flushed with 100 U heparin on weekends. The dose of 5-FU was 300 mg/m2/day, delivered as a continuous infusion from Monday morning to Friday afternoon. Acute toxicity from the 5-FU was monitored closely, and appropriate dose modifications were made when NCI grade 3 toxicity or higher was identified. Nonhematologic toxicity was monitored by close clinical observation. Hematologic toxicity, mainly anemia and leukopenia, was assessed weekly by following the hemoglobin and white blood cell count, respectively. Patients with hemoglobin < 8.0 gm/dl were considered for transfusion. A white blood cell count < 2.0 thou/cu mm was defined as grade 3 leukopenia, and at that level chemotherapy was withheld.

Operative Therapy
Surgery was performed 5 to 8 weeks after completion of the chemoradiotherapy. Operative strategies included low anterior resection, transsacral resection, or APR. Total mesorectal excision was performed as described by MacFarlane et al.6 and Enker et al.7 A proximal diverting loop ileostomy or colostomy was performed routinely if the surgeon performed a coloanal anastomosis. Both perioperative and long-term morbidity were recorded. After surgery, four cycles of bolus 5-FU (425 mg/m2/day, days 1–5) and leucovorin (20 mg/m2/day, days 1–5) were administered every 4 weeks.

Pathological Assessment of the Resected Specimen
The distal margin was determined by measuring the distance of the fixed tissue from the lowest edge of the tumor or ulcer to the distal cut edge. Tumor involvement of the distal edge also was assessed by intraoperative frozen section. In four patients the distal margin was histologically involved, necessitating further distal resection until microscopically free of tumor. If a tumor-free distal margin could not be obtained, then an APR was performed. The primary site was identified for the pathologist at the time of resection, and serial sections were taken to assess the extent of residual disease. A complete response was noted when no viable tumor or residual mucin could be identified. Radial margins also were assessed to the nearest millimeter from any viable tumor to the closest radial inked surface. Radial margins in the cases of complete responses were assessed from the residual fibrosis. Standard hematoxylin and eosin staining was used to assess lymph nodes.

Statistical Analysis
Disease-free survival curves were generated for the 36 patients who completed therapy by using the LIFETEST procedure from the statistical package SAS (SAS/STAT Release 6.12, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Predictors of survival were analyzed independently, because the study size was insufficient to fit multivariable models. Survival curves were compared by using the log-rank test, with significance reported at the P < .05 level.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
There were 37 patients with biopsy-proven distal rectal adenocarcinomas (<= 8 cm from the anal verge) enrolled in the protocol with a median follow-up of 33 months. The median age of the group was 60 years (range, 23–89 years), and there were 26 men and 11 women. All but one patient completed the entire course of preoperative radiotherapy. External-beam radiation was stopped in this patient at 5040 cGy due to small bowel in the radiation field. 5-FU was discontinued in two patients because of grade 3 GI toxicity, one patient with both grade 3 skin and GI toxicity, and another patient with grade 4 cardiac toxicity (Table 1). Sphincter preservation was successful in 28 patients (76%), and APR was required in 8 patients (24%). Two patients who initially underwent sphincter preservation subsequently required permanent colostomy, one due to fecal incontinence and the other as a result of a persistent rectovaginal fistula. The three patients who presented with recurrent rectal cancer all were able to undergo sphincter-sparing surgery. Significant perioperative morbidity occurred in 4 of 36 patients (11%). These complications included an anastomotic leak with subsequent rectovaginal fistula, a small bowel obstruction treated nonoperatively, a prolonged ileus, and one episode of urosepsis. There was no perioperative mortality in this series. Long-term morbidity included three patients with anastomotic strictures that required rectal dilation. Four patients did not receive the four planned cycles of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy based on their 5-FU intolerance during radiation therapy.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy and maximal treatment toxicity
 
Five patients had a complete response (14%) whereas 13 patients (35%) had only microscopic residual disease on final pathological assessment. The median distance of the lowest edge of the tumor to the anal verge for patients who underwent sphincter preservation was 5 cm (range, 3.5–8 cm) and for APR 3.8 cm (range, 2.0–7.0 cm). The median distal margin for patients who underwent sphincter preservation was 1.0 cm (range, 0.1–5.5 cm) compared with 2.5 cm (range, 0.5–5.6 cm) for APR (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. Assessment of surgical margins according to surgical treatment
 
The influence of distal margins after sphincter preservation or APR on disease-free survival is shown in Figure 1. There were 16 patients whose distal margins were <= 1 cm, 12 patients with distal margins > 1 cm, and 8 who underwent APR. There were 12 recurrences overall, 5 (62%) in the group that underwent APR, six (38%) in those with distal margins <= 1 cm, and one (8%) when distal margins exceeded 1 cm. Disease-free survival was significantly different between the three groups (P < .03), although there was no difference between APR and the sphincter-sparing group with margins <= 1 cm. Significant improvement in disease-free survival was observed in the sphincter-sparing group with > 1 cm distal margins compared with APR (P < .01) but not when compared with sphincter-sparing with subcentimeter margins (P < .06). Pelvic or local recurrences were documented in four patients, three who underwent APR (37.5%) and one who had sphincter preservation (3.6%). Among nine patients with distal margins < 5 mm, there was only one local recurrence. This patient had 21 positive lymph nodes on pathological assessment and failed throughout her pelvis. Consequently, there were no isolated intraluminal recurrences in the sphincter-preservation group. Two of the patients with pelvic failures in the APR group presented initially as a local recurrence. Only one pelvic recurrence was seen in the absence of metastatic disease, in a patient who had an APR but with a positive radial margin.



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1. Disease-free survival based on procedure (sphincter-sparing [SS] or abdominoperineal resection [APR]) and distal margins (dm) (SS, <= 1 cm or > 1 cm). Although there was a difference when all three groups were considered together (P < .03), there was no significant difference between APR and SS with distal margin <= 1 cm (P = .27) or between the two SS groups (P = .06) by log-rank analysis.

 
Radial margins were reported in 32 patients who had evidence of residual disease or ulcerated scar after chemoradiotherapy. Radial margins were considered positive in four patients, all of whom underwent APR. Pathological assessment of radial margins demonstrated a median distance of 0.5 cm for both the sphincter preservation group (range, 0.1–1.0 cm) and the APR group (range, 0–0.7 cm; Table 2). Disease-free survival was significantly worse (P < .02) when radial margins were <= 3 mm (Fig. 2). All four patients with positive radial margins have recurred in the pelvis but only one in the absence of prior or concurrent metastatic disease. Among the patients with 1-mm radial margins, two of five have recurred with distant disease only.



View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2. Disease-free survival for pathological radial margins (RM) <= 3 mm (dashed line) and > 3 mm (solid line). Log-rank comparison is significant (P < .02).

 
Lymph nodes that contained adenocarcinoma were demonstrated in the pathological specimen in five patients from the APR group with four recurrences and in seven patients from the sphincter preservation group with two recurrences. There were six recurrences among the 25 patients without pathological evidence of lymph node metastases. Three of the four pelvic recurrences occurred among patients with positive nodes. There was no difference (P = .17) in disease-free survival based on the pathological finding of lymph node metastases (Fig. 3).



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3. Influence of pathological (routine hematoxylin and eosin staining) lymph node status on disease-free survival. Note that pathological assessment was performed after chemoradiation and surgery.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Despite the increasing use of sphincter preservation for rectal cancers, nearly 50% of patients still undergo APR.16 In many circumstances, APR is performed out of concern for adequate distal margins despite mounting evidence that more limited distal margins may be appropriate. Although distal margins as great as 5 cm were advocated in the past,17 more recent data suggest that 2 cm distal margins are adequate.18–23 Paty et al.23 found no increase in pelvic recurrence when the distal margin was < 2 cm compared with > 2 cm. A number of authors also have shown that distal margins <= 2 cm do not increase local recurrence or compromise 5-year survival compared with distal margins > 2 cm.19,20

A number of clinical pathological studies that examined distal intramural spread suggest that smaller distal margins, even <= 1 cm, may be adequate in the majority of cases. This is supported by pathological evidence that distal intramural spread rarely exceeds 1–2 cm.24,25 When significant distal spread does occur, long-term survival is affected adversely, despite treatment with APR.19 In a recent study of 505 patients who underwent curative rectal resection, only 3.8% showed evidence of microscopic distal spread.22 Moreover, most of these had distal spread < 1 cm. The presence of distal spread was associated with decreased survival primarily due to distant disease recurrence.

Although mounting evidence supports the use of 2-cm distal margins in rectal cancer resections, the use of centimeter and subcentimeter margins remains quite controversial. Karanjia et al.26 compared patients who underwent anterior resections with TME who had <=1 cm and > 1 cm distal margins. The authors found no difference in either local recurrence or survival between the two groups. In contrast, Vernava et al.21 found a decreased 5-year survival and increased anastomotic recurrence rate when distal margins were <= 8 mm. In the present study, we accepted even smaller distal margins, often < 5 mm. Patients with margins <= 1 cm had an equivalent local recurrence rate and disease-free survival when compared with those with > 1 cm margins. Our study does differ from many earlier reports that examined distal margins, because we used preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The effective downstaging of these low-lying tumors might well include the pathological clearance of distal microscopic spread.

Pelvic recurrences were seen in 4 of 36 (11%) patients, which is in keeping with previous reports that used preoperative radiotherapy.5,8–10 When only patients with primary disease were considered, pelvic recurrences were seen in 3 of 33 (6%) patients. We noted no isolated pelvic recurrences in our series, but rather pelvic recurrences occurred in conjunction with distant metastatic disease. A number of factors may have contributed to the low incidence of pelvic recurrences in this high-risk group. We used a dose of external beam radiation therapy (5400 cGy) that is higher than generally reported (4500–5040 cGy). Concurrent infusional 5-FU also was used, which has been shown to enhance the effects of external beam radiotherapy.27 The efficacy of preoperative chemoradiotherapy is demonstrated in the current study by the 14% complete response rate and the observation that an additional 35% of the patients had only microscopic foci of residual disease on final pathological assessment. This clinical response likely contributed to successful sphincter preservation in the majority of patients who otherwise would have required an APR. Attention to the pathological assessment of distal margins at the time of surgery also may be a factor. If microscopically free distal margins were not documented by frozen section, then sphincter preservation was abandoned and an APR performed.

The use of TME also must be considered as a contributing factor in reducing pelvic recurrences. TME, a technique of sharp dissection that incorporates the entire mesorectum in the resected specimen, has been championed by MacFarlane et al.6 and Enker,7 with reported local recurrence rates as low as 5% to 8% in high-risk patients. Quirke et al.28 demonstrated that radial spread into the mesorectum is a common occurrence. Sharp dissection along the parietal pelvic fascia ensures resection of these small (< 5 mm) occult nodal metastases that otherwise might be left behind. In the present study we took special care to assess radial margins. In patients with radial margins <= 3 mm, there was an increase in overall recurrence rate (53%, 8 of 15) compared with radial margins > 3 mm (12%, 2 of 17). This suggests that radial margins are a more important predictor of disease recurrence and survival than distal margins. On the contrary, the presence or absence of positive lymph nodes and tumor response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy did not have prognostic significance. This may be attributed to both the relatively small number of cases analyzed and the high incidence of clinical downstaging that occurred before pathological assessment.

In the current study there was an increased recurrence rate with APR (62.5%) compared with sphincter preservation (25%). The increased risk of recurrence for patients who undergo APR has been described previously and likely reflects the worse prognosis attributed to tumors of the low rectum compared with midrectal tumors.7 All eight cases that involved APR in the present series involved lower-third rectal tumors, as did most of the group with distal margins <= 1 cm. When patients who underwent sphincter-sparing surgery with distal margins <= 1 cm were compared with those who had an APR, no difference in disease-free survival was found. This suggests that the location of the tumor may be a more important prognostic factor than the type of operation performed.

The treatment schema in the present study of preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery was well tolerated. Despite the use of slightly higher doses of external beam radiotherapy together with infusional 5-FU, we did not see toxicity beyond that reported in other studies.4,29,30 Most of the toxicity in the present study was grade 1 and easily manageable. Although a formal functional assessment of bowel function was not performed, the majority of patients were content with their postoperative fecal continence.

The present study demonstrates that sphincter preservation is feasible in approximately 75% of patients after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for low-lying rectal cancers that otherwise would require APR. Distal margin clearance < 1 cm was used often in the present series without adversely affecting pelvic recurrence or disease-free survival. Despite margins as small as 1 mm, there was only one pelvic recurrence out of 28 patients (3.6%) who underwent sphincter preservation. Radial margins seem to be a more important prognostic indicator of disease recurrence. Distant disease recurrence continues to be the predominant mode of failure and highlights the need for better systemic adjuvant therapy.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank Debbie Layne for help in preparation of the manuscript and Richard Madden, PhD, for statistical support.


   Footnotes
 
Presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, New Orleans, Louisiana, May 18, 1998.

Received for publication April 14, 2000. Accepted for publication September 25, 2000.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Meterissian S, Skibber J, Rich T, et al. Patterns of residual disease after preoperative chemoradiation in ultrasound T3 rectal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 1994; 1: 111–6.[Abstract]
  2. Meade PG, Blatchford GJ, Thorson AG, Christensen MA, Ternent CA. Preoperative chemoradiation downstages locally advanced ultrasound-staged rectal cancer. Am J Surg 1995; 170: 609–13.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Burke SJ, Percarpio BA, Knight DC, Kwasnik EM. Combined preoperative radiation and mitomycin/5-fluorouracil treatment for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 187: 164–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Minsky BD, Cohen AM, Kemeny N, Enker WE, Kelsen DP, Reichman B. Enhancement of radiation-induced downstaging of rectal cancer by fluorouracil and high-dose leucovorin chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 79–84.[Abstract]
  5. Grann A, Minksy BD, Cohen AM, et al. Preliminary results of pre-operative 5-fluorouracil(5-FU), low dose leucovorin, and concurrent radiation therapy for resectable T3 rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1997; 40: 515–22.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. MacFarlane JK, Ryall RD, Heald RJ. Mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1993; 341: 457–60.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Enker WE, Thaler HT, Cranor ML, Polyak T. Total mesorectal excision in the operative treatment of carcinoma of the rectum. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 181: 335–45.[Medline]
  8. Stryker SJ, Kiel KD, Rademaker A, Shaw JM, Ujiki GT, Pticha SM. Preoperative "chemoradiation" for stages II and III rectal carcinoma. Arch Surg 1996; 131: 514–9.[Abstract]
  9. Rich TA, Skibber JM, Ajani JA, et al. Preoperative infusional chemoradiation therapy for stage T3 rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 32: 1025–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Chari RS, Tyler DS, Anscher MS, et al. Preoperative radiation and chemotherapy in the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Ann Surg 1995; 221: 778–87.[Medline]
  11. Douglass HOJr, Moertel CG, Mayer RJ, et al. Survival after postoperative combination treatment of rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 1294–5.[Medline]
  12. Krook JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL, et al. Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 709–15.[Abstract]
  13. O’Connell MJ, Martenson JA, Wieand HS, et al. Improving adjuvant therapy for rectal cancer by combining protracted-infusion fluorouracil with radiation therapy after curative surgery. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 502–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Fisher B, Wolmark N, Rockette H, et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy for rectal cancer: Results from NSABP protocol R-01. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988; 80: 21–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Radiation therapy and fluorouracil with or without semustine for the treatment of patients with surgical adjuvant adenocarcinoma of the rectum. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:549–57.
  16. Beart RW, Steele GD, Menck HR, Chmiel JS, Ocwieja KE, Winchester DP. Management and survival of patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum: A national survey of the Commission on Cancer. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 181: 225.[Medline]
  17. Goligher JC, Dukes CE, Bussey HJR. Local recurrences after sphincter-saving excisions for carcinomas of the rectum and rectosigmoid. Br J Surg 1951; 39: 199–211.
  18. Wilson SM, Beahrs OH. The curative treatment of carcinoma of the sigmoid, rectosigmoid, and rectum. Ann Surg 1976; 183: 556–65.[Medline]
  19. Pollett WG, Nicholls RJ. The relationship between the extent of distal clearance and survival and local recurrence rates after curative anterior resection for carcinoma of the rectum. Ann Surg 1983; 198: 159–63.[Medline]
  20. Williams NS, Dixon MF, Johnston D. Reappraisal of the 5 centimetre rule of distal excision for carcinoma of the rectum: A study of distal intramurual spread and of the patients’ survival. Br J Surg 1983; 70: 150–4.[Medline]
  21. Vernava AM, Moran M. A prospective evaluation of distal margins in carcinoma of the rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992; 175: 333–6.[Medline]
  22. Shirouzu K, Isomoto H, Kakegawa T. Distal spread of rectal cancer and optimal margin of resection for sphincter-preserving surgery. Cancer 1995; 76: 388–92.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Paty PB, Enker WE, Cohen AM, Lauwers GY. Treatment of rectal cancer by low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis. Ann Surg 1994; 219: 365–73.[Medline]
  24. Grinnell RS. Distal intramural spread of the rectum and rectosigmoid. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1954; 99: 421–30.
  25. Black WA, Waugh JM. The intramural extension of carcinoma of the descending colon, sigmoid, and rectosigmoid: A pathologic study. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1948; 87: 457–64.[Medline]
  26. Karanjia ND, Schache DJ, North WRS, Heald RJ. "Close shave" in anterior resection. Br J Surg 1990; 77: 510–2.[Medline]
  27. Lawrence TS, Maybaum J. Fluoro pyrimidines as radiation sensitizers. Semin Radiat Oncol 1993; 3: 2028.
  28. Quirke P, Durdey P, Dixon MF, Williams NS. Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection: Histopathological study of lateral tumor spread and surgical excision. Lancet 1986; 2: 996–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Ooi BS, Tjandra JJ, Green MD. Morbidities of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for resectable rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1999; 42: 403–18.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Minsky BD, Cohen AM, Wagman R, Guillem JG, Paty PP. Sphincter preservation with preoperative radiation therapy and coloanal anastomosis: Long term follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 42: 51–7.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The OncologistHome page
R. Glynne-Jones and M. Harrison
Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: What Is the Evidence for Induction Chemoradiation?
Oncologist, November 1, 2007; 12(11): 1309 - 1318.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
H. B. Neuman, D. Schrag, C. Cabral, M. R. Weiser, P. B. Paty, J. G. Guillem, B. D. Minsky, W. D. Wong, and L. K. Temple
Can Differences in Bowel Function After Surgery for Rectal Cancer Be Identified by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Instrument?
Ann. Surg. Oncol., May 1, 2007; 14(5): 1727 - 1734.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch SurgHome page
N. Han and S. Galandiuk
Induction Chemoradiation for Rectal Cancer
Arch Surg, December 1, 2006; 141(12): 1246 - 1252.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
R. Rengan, P. Paty, W. D. Wong, J. Guillem, M. Weiser, L. Temple, L. Saltz, and B. D. Minsky
Distal cT2N0 Rectal Cancer: Is There an Alternative to Abdominoperineal Resection?
J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2005; 23(22): 4905 - 4912.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 SURG INNOVHome page
P. A. Paraskeva, S. Purkayastha, and A. Darzi
Laparoscopy for Malignancy: Current Status
Surgical Innovation, March 1, 2004; 11(1): 27 - 36.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
H. G. Moore, E. Riedel, B. D. Minsky, L. Saltz, P. Paty, D. Wong, A. M. Cohen, and J. G. Guillem
Adequacy of 1-cm Distal Margin After Restorative Rectal Cancer Resection With Sharp Mesorectal Excision and Preoperative Combined-Modality Therapy
Ann. Surg. Oncol., January 1, 2003; 10(1): 80 - 85.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kuvshinoff, B.
Right arrow Articles by Ota, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kuvshinoff, B.
Right arrow Articles by Ota, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Surgery

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS