Study of circumferential resection margin in patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma

Table 1 Correlation between circumferential resection margin involvement with clinicopathologic characteristics of patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma

		Circumferential resectionmargin involvement
Variable	n	Negative (%)	Positive (%)	P
Gender
Male	37	29 (78.4)	8 (21.6)
Female	19	15 (78.9)	4 (21.1)	P = 0.961
Age (yr)
< 60	25	20 (80.0)	5 (20.0)
≥ 60	31	24 (77.4)	7 (22.6)	P = 0.815
Superficial diameter (cm)
< 5	38	33 (86.8)	5 (13.2)
≥ 5	18	11 (61.1)	7 (38.9)	P = 0.028
Diameter of infiltration
1/4	8	7 (87.5)	1 (12.5)
1/2	16	14 (87.5)	2 (12.5)
3/4	18	14 (77.8)	4 (22.2)
4/4	14	9 (64.3)	5 (35.7)	P = 0.417
Ming’s classification
Expansive	15	2 (13.3)	13 (86.7)
Infiltrative	41	10 (24.4)	31 (75.6)	P = 0.372
Depth of invasion
T1	6	6 (100.0)	0 (0)
T2	23	21 (91.3)	2 (8.7)
T3	27	17 (63.0)	10 (37.0)	P = 0.021
Histologic differentiation
Well	5	4 (80.0)	1 (20.0)
Moderate	37	32 (86.5)	5 (13.5)
Poorly	14	8 (57.1)	6 (42.9)	P = 0.074
Lymph node metastasis
Positive	29	22 (75.9)	7 (24.1)
Negative	27	22 (81.5)	5 (18.5)	P = 0.609