Skip to main content

Table 5 CRM status and survival adjusted for lymph node status

From: The prognostic significance of the circumferential resection margin in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients without neoadjuvant treatment

  

N0

N1-2

N3

HR (95%CI)

P value

HR (95%CI)

P value

HR (95%CI)

P value

OS

  CAP criteria

R1 vs. R0

1.846(1.067–3.196)

0.029

2.511(1.645–3.835)

 < 0.001

1.367(0.576–3.246)

0.478

  RCP criteria

R1 vs. R0

1.874(1.366–2.570)

 < 0.001

1.122(0.874–1.441)

0.366

1.499(0.830–2.705)

0.179

  CRM three-tier criteria

0 mm vs. 0-1 mm

1.236(0.686–2.228)

0.481

2.521(1.590–3.996)

 < 0.001

1.112(0.437–2.833)

0.824

0 mm vs. > 1 mm

2.208(1.258–3.876)

0.006

2.483(1.608–3.835)

 < 0.001

1.596(0.642–3.967)

0.314

0-1 mm vs. > 1 mm

1.801(1.283–2.529)

0.001

0.970(0.741–1.270)

0.825

1.468(0.776–2.777)

0.238

DFS

  CAP criteria

R1 vs. R0

1.615(0.952–2.740)

0.076

1.936(1.271–2.949)

0.002

1.369(0.611–3.071)

0.446

  RCP criteria

R1 vs. R0

1.735(1.287–2.339)

 < 0.001

0.956(0.751–1.218)

0.716

1.196(0.676–2.115)

0.538

  CRM three-tier criteria

0 mm vs. 0-1 mm

1.120(0.634–1.979)

0.695

2.126(1.345–3.359)

0.001

1.266(0.523–3.067)

0.601

0 mm vs. > 1 mm

1.884(1.097–3.232)

0.022

1.820(1.184–2.800)

0.006

1.440(0.613–3.380)

0.403

0-1 mm vs. > 1 mm

1.700(1.233–2.345)

0.001

0.845 (0.651–1.097)

0.205

1.123(0.604–2.088)

0.714

  1. CAP College of American Pathologists, CRM Circumferential resection margin, RCP Royal College of Pathologists