One millimetre is the safe cut-off for magnetic resonance imaging prediction of surgical margin status in rectal cancer
British Journal of Surgery, ISSN: 0007-1323, Vol: 98, Issue: 6, Page: 872-879
2011
- 155Citations
- 111Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations155
- Citation Indexes152
- 152
- CrossRef113
- Policy Citations3
- Policy Citation3
- Captures111
- Readers111
- 111
Article Description
Background: A pathologically involved margin in rectal cancer is defined as tumour within 1 mm of the surgical resection margin. There is no standard definition of a predicted safe margin on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The aim of this study was to assess which cut-off (1, 2 or 5 mm) was the best predictor of local recurrence based on preoperative MRI assessment of the circumferential resection margin (CRM). Methods: Data were collected prospectively on the distance between the tumour and mesorectal fascia for patients with documented radiological margin status in the MERCURY study. Positive margin and local recurrence rates were compared for MRI distances from the tumour to the mesorectal fascia of 1 mm or less, more than 1 mm up to 2 mm, more than 2 mm up to 5 mm, and more than 5 mm. The Cox proportional hazard regression method was used to determine the effect of level of margin involvement on time to local recurrence. Results: Univariable analysis showed that, relative to a distance measured by MRI of more than 5 mm, the hazard ratio (HR) for local recurrence was 3.90 (95 per cent confidence interval 1.99 to 7.63; P < 0.001) for a margin of 1 mm or less, 0.81 (0.36 to 1.85; P = 0.620) for a margin of more than 1 mm up to 2 mm, and 0.33 (0.10 to 1.08; P = 0.067) for a margin greater than 2 mm up to 5 mm. Multivariable analysis of the effect of MRI distance to the mesorectal fascia and preoperative treatment on local recurrence showed that a margin of 1 mm or less remained significant regardless of preoperative treatment (HR 3.72, 1.43 to 9.71; P = 0.007). Conclusion: For preoperative staging of rectal cancer, the best cut-off distance for predicting CRM involvement using MRI is 1 mm. Using a cut-off greater than this does not appear to identify patients at higher risk of local recurrence. © 2011 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=79955472818&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7458; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21480194; https://academic.oup.com/bjs/article/98/6/872/6150664; https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7458; https://academic.oup.com/bjs/article-abstract/98/6/872/6150664?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know