F Sumiyama, M Hamada, T Kobayashi, Y Matsumi, R Inada, H Kurokawa, Y Uemura
{"title":"Why did we encounter a pCRM-positive specimen whose preoperative MRI indicates negative mesorectal fascia involvement in middle to low rectal cancer?","authors":"F Sumiyama, M Hamada, T Kobayashi, Y Matsumi, R Inada, H Kurokawa, Y Uemura","doi":"10.1007/s10151-025-03117-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to examine why we encounter a pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM)-positive specimen whose preoperative MRI indicates negative mesorectal fascia involvement in middle to low rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-four consecutive patients included in this study had c(yc)T1-3 primary rectal adenocarcinoma without mesorectal fascia involvement and underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of Kansai Medical University Hospital from January 2014 to April 2018. We adopted three checkpoints to investigate the misleading point causing positive pCRM (≤ 1 mm). (1) c(yc)CRM diagnosis by two radiologists with more than 20 and 15 years of experience in rectal cancer MRI diagnosis. (2) The specimen was assessed using the TME score presented by Nagtegaal. (3) We compared the standard sectioning according to UK guidelines (group A; n = 26) with the specimen MRI image navigation-based section (group B; n = 18) in terms of estimation of pCRM by c(yc)CRM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We achieved a \"complete\" resection specimen in all cases. A simple correlation coefficient in group B revealed a significant correlation between c(yc)CRM and pCRM (r = 0.663, p = 0.00513); this correlation was not significant in group A (r = 0.261, p = 0.19824). However, tests for differences between linear regression coefficients in groups A and B showed no significant differences (p = 0.12596). There were five cases of pCRM ≤ 1 mm: three in group A and two in group B. An anterior lesion caused pCRM ≤ 1 mm in three cases; the tumor deposits or extramural vascular invasion caused the other cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The cause of misleading pCRM was the inaccurate preoperative MRI diagnosis of c(yc)CRM.</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"29 1","pages":"81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-025-03117-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: This study aims to examine why we encounter a pathological circumferential resection margin (pCRM)-positive specimen whose preoperative MRI indicates negative mesorectal fascia involvement in middle to low rectal cancer.
Methods: Forty-four consecutive patients included in this study had c(yc)T1-3 primary rectal adenocarcinoma without mesorectal fascia involvement and underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) with curative intent in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery of Kansai Medical University Hospital from January 2014 to April 2018. We adopted three checkpoints to investigate the misleading point causing positive pCRM (≤ 1 mm). (1) c(yc)CRM diagnosis by two radiologists with more than 20 and 15 years of experience in rectal cancer MRI diagnosis. (2) The specimen was assessed using the TME score presented by Nagtegaal. (3) We compared the standard sectioning according to UK guidelines (group A; n = 26) with the specimen MRI image navigation-based section (group B; n = 18) in terms of estimation of pCRM by c(yc)CRM.
Results: We achieved a "complete" resection specimen in all cases. A simple correlation coefficient in group B revealed a significant correlation between c(yc)CRM and pCRM (r = 0.663, p = 0.00513); this correlation was not significant in group A (r = 0.261, p = 0.19824). However, tests for differences between linear regression coefficients in groups A and B showed no significant differences (p = 0.12596). There were five cases of pCRM ≤ 1 mm: three in group A and two in group B. An anterior lesion caused pCRM ≤ 1 mm in three cases; the tumor deposits or extramural vascular invasion caused the other cases.
Conclusion: The cause of misleading pCRM was the inaccurate preoperative MRI diagnosis of c(yc)CRM.
期刊介绍:
Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work.
Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.