Resection Status Does Not Impact Recurrence in Well-Differentiated Liposarcoma of the Extremity

Background Well-differentiated liposarcoma (WDLPS) is a low-grade soft tissue sarcoma with a propensity for local recurrence. The necessity of obtaining microscopically free surgical margins (R0) to minimize local recurrence is not clear. This study evaluates recurrence-free survival (RFS) of extremity WDLPS in relation to resection margin status. Methods A retrospective review of adult patients with primary extremity WDLPS at seven US institutions from 2000 to 2016 was performed. Patients with recurrent tumors or incomplete resection (R2) were excluded. Clinicopathologic factors were analyzed to assess impact on local RFS. Results 97 patients with primary extremity WDLPS were identified. The majority of patients had deep, lower extremity tumors. Mean tumor size was 18.2±8.9cm. Patients were treated with either radical (76.3%) or excisional (23.7%) resections; 64% had R0 and 36% had microscopically positive (R1) resection margins. Ten patients received radiation therapy with no difference in receipt of radiation between R0 vs R1 groups. Thirteen patients (13%) developed a local recurrence with no difference in RFS between R0 vs R1 resection. Five-year RFS was 59.5% for R0 vs 85.2% for R1. Only one patient died of disease after developing dedifferentiation and distant metastasis despite originally having an R0 resection. Discussion In this large multi-institutional study of surgical resection of extremity WDLPS, microscopically positive margins were not associated with an increased risk of recurrence. Positive microscopic margin resection for extremity WDLPS may yield similar rates of local control while avoiding a radical approach to obtain microscopically negative margins.

EP.WE.308COVID-19 and the impact on oncological surgery at a district general hospital

Introduction Covid-19 has had a significant impact on all aspects of healthcare. Efforts to maintain oncological surgery have continued throughout the pandemic despite facing significant challenges. We aimed to characterise our experience of oncological surgery during the first 2-months of the pandemic in Scotland and compare that with the same period in 2019. Methods A prospective cohort study was performed from 23/03/20 to 07/05/20. All elective oncological operations at a single district general hospital, predominantly managing breast and colorectal malignancies, were included. Data on patient demographics, waiting time to surgery, inpatient characteristics and oncological outcomes were recorded. Statistical analysis was used to compare these with retrospective data from 2019. Results A total of 37 patients were included, 18 in 2019 and 19 in 2020. There were no differences in patient age (63 vs 66.2 years, p = 0.486), length of stay (5.3 vs 4.3 days, p = 0.697) time spent on waiting list (25.4 vs 20.9 days, p = 0.303) or surgical approach (p = 0.300). Oncological outcomes were comparable with no statistical difference in clear resection margin status (88.9 vs 84.2%, p = 0.189) or positive nodal status (5.6 vs 26.3%, p = 0.086). No patient in either cohort had a post-operative complication. Conclusion Oncological surgery during Covid-19 can be performed safely and with favourable oncological outcomes. The longer-term effects from delayed diagnoses remain to be evaluated.

Prognostic Impact of Resection Margin Status in Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Background Resection margin status is considered one of the few surgeon-controlled parameters affecting prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While studies mostly focus on resection margins in pancreatoduodenectomy, little is known about their role in distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to investigate resection margins in DP for PDAC. Methods Patients who underwent DP for PDAC between October 2004 and February 2020 were included (n = 124). Resection margins and associated parameters were studied in two consecutive time periods during which different pathology examination protocols were used: non-standardized (period 1: 2004–2014) and standardized (period 2: 2015–2020). Microscopic margin involvement (R1) was defined as ≤1 mm clearance. Results Laparoscopic and open resections were performed in 117 (94.4%) and 7 (5.6%) patients, respectively. The R1 rate for the entire cohort was 73.4%, increasing from 60.4% in period 1 to 83.1% in period 2 (p = 0.005). A significantly higher R1 rate was observed for the posterior margin (35.8 vs. 70.4%, p < 0.001) and anterior pancreatic surface (based on a 0 mm clearance; 18.9 vs. 35.4%, p = 0.045). Pathology examination period, poorly differentiated PDAC, and vascular invasion were associated with R1 in the multivariable model. Extended DP, positive anterior pancreatic surface, lymph node ratio, perineural invasion, and adjuvant chemotherapy, but not R1, were significant prognostic factors for overall survival in the entire cohort. Conclusions Pathology examination is a key determinant of resection margin status following DP for PDAC. A high R1 rate is to be expected when pathology examination is meticulous and standardized. Involvement of the anterior pancreatic surface affects prognosis.

The Impact of Intraoperative Frozen Section on Resection Margin Status and Survival of Patients Underwent Pancreatoduodenectomy for Distal Cholangiocarcinoma

BackgroundIntraoperative frozen section (FS) is broadly used during pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) to ensure a negative margin status, but its survival benefits on obtaining a secondary R0 resection for distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) is controversial and unclear.MethodsClinical data of 107 patients who underwent PD for dCCA was retrospectively collected and divided into different groups based on use of FS (FS and non-FS groups) and status of resection margin (pR0, sR0 and R1 groups), and clinical parameters and survival of patients were compared and analyzed accordingly.ResultsThere were 50 patients in FS group with a median survival of 28 months, 57 patients in non-FS group with a median survival of 27 months. There was no statistical difference between the two groups with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (P = 0.347). There were 98 patients in R0 group (88 in pR0 and 10 in sR0) and nine patients in R1 group, with a median survival of 29 months and 22 months respectively, which showed a better survival in R0 group than in R1 group (P = 0.006). Survival analyses between subgroups revealed difference between pR0 and R1 group (P = 0.005), while no statistical difference concerning pR0 vs. sR0 (P = 0.211) and sR0 vs. R1 groups (P = 0.262). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed resection margin status, pre-operative biliary drainage and lymph node invasion to be independent prognostic factors for dCCA patients.ConclusionsIntraoperative FS should be recommended as it significantly increased the rate of R0 resection, which was positively related to a better survival. A primary R0 resection should also be encouraged and if not, a secondary R0 could be considered at the discretion of surgeons as it showed similar survival with primary R0 resection.

Margin Assessment in Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Review of the Literature

Adequacy of margins must take into consideration both the resection margin width (quantity) and anatomic barrier (quality). There are several classification schemes for reporting surgical resection margin status for soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Most of the studies regarding treatment outcomes in STS included all histologic grades and histological subtypes, which include infiltrative and non-infiltrative subtypes and are very heterogeneous in terms of both histologic characteristics and treatment modalities (adjuvant treatments or not). This lack of consistency makes it difficult to compare results from study to study. Therefore, there is a great need for evidence-based standardization concerning the width of resection margins. The aim of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the literature on margins, and to highlight the need for a uniform description of the margin status for patients with STS. Patient cases should be discussed at multidisciplinary tumor boards and treatments should be individualized to clinical and demographic characteristics, which must include also a deep knowledge of specific histotypes behaviors, particularly infiltrative ones.