No abstract

The goal of cancer surgery is to achieve a “clean” microscopic resection, with no residual tumour remaining in the wound. To achieve that goal, the surgeon typically incorporates a measured buffer of grossly normal tissue about the entire circumference of the tumour. Microscopic analysis of the resection boundaries is then performed to determine if all traces of the tumour have been completely removed. This analysis is thought to provide a surrogate indication as to the likelihood for that tumour to recur after surgery. However, it is recognised that tumour recurrence may not occur even when microscopic evidence of tumour has been identified at the resection margins, and recurrence can also occur when conventional histology has considered the tumour to have been completely removed. The explanations for this dichotomy are numerous and include technical and practical limitations of the processing methodology, and also several surgeon‐related and tumour‐related reasons. Ultimately, the inability to confidently determine when a tumour has been removed sufficiently to prevent recurrence can impact on the ability to provide owners with confident treatment advice. In this article, the authors describe the challenges with defining the true extent of the tumour margin from the perspective of the surgeon, the pathologist and the tumour. The authors also provide an analysis of why our current efforts to ensure that all traces of the local tumour have been successfully removed may provide an imperfect assessment of the risk of recurrence.

Due to the complex nature of tumour biology and the integration between host tissues and molecular processes of the tumour cells, a continued reliance on the status of the microscopic cellular margin should not remain our only determinant of the success of a curative‐intent surgery for patients with cancer. Based on current evidence, relying on a purely cellular focus to provide a binary indication of treatment success can provide an incomplete interpretation of potential outcome. A more holistic analysis of the cancer margin may be required. If we are to move ahead from our current situation – and allow treatment plans to be more intelligently tailored to meet the requirements of each individual tumour – we need to improve our utilisation of techniques that either improve recognition of residual tumour cells within the surgical field or enable a more comprehensive interrogation of tumour biology that identifies a risk of recurrence. In the second article in this series on defining the relevance of surgical margins, the authors discuss possible alternative strategies for margin assessment and evaluation in the canine and feline cancer patient. These strategies include considering adoption of the residual tumour classification scheme; intra‐operative imaging systems including fluorescence‐guided surgery, optical coherence tomography and Raman spectroscopy; molecular analysis and whole transcriptome analysis of tissues; and the development of a biologic index (nomogram). These techniques may allow evaluation of individual tumour biology and the status of the resection margin in ways that are different to our current techniques. Ultimately, these techniques seek to better define the risk of tumour recurrence following surgery and provide the surgeon and patient with more confidence in margin assessment.

No abstract

No abstract