Prognostic value of circumferential radial margin involvement in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Residual tumor at the proximal or distal margin after esophagectomy is associated with worse survival outcomes; however, the significance of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) remains controversial. In this study, we sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of the CRM in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who underwent esophagectomy for pathologic T3 esophageal cancer from 2000 to 2019. Patients were divided into three groups: CRM- (residual tumor >1 mm from the CRM), CRM-close (residual tumor >0 to 1 mm from the CRM), and CRM+ (residual tumor at the surgical CRM). CRM was also categorized and analyzed per the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) and College of American Pathologists (CAP) classifications. RESULTS: Of the 519 patients included, 351 (68%) had CRM-, 132 (25%) had CRM-close, and 36 (7%) had CRM+. CRM+ was associated with shorter disease-free survival [DFS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: hazard ratio (HR), 1.53 [95% CI, 1.03-2.28]; P =0.034] and overall survival (OS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.32-2.95]; P <0.001). Survival was not significantly different between CRM-close and CRM-. After adjustment for potential confounders, CAP+ was associated with poor oncologic outcomes (CAP+ vs. CAP-: DFS: HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.00-2.17]; P =0.050; OS: HR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.30-2.86]; P =0.001); RCP+ was not (RCP+ vs. RCP-: DFS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.97-1.52]; P =0.10; OS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.96-1.54]; P =0.11). CONCLUSION: CRM status has critical prognostic significance for patients undergoing esophagectomy: CRM+ was associated with worse outcomes, and outcomes between CRM-close and CRM- were similar.