AIM: To clarify the relationship between circumferential resection margin status and local and distant recurrence as well as survival of patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma. The relationship between circumferential resection margin status and clinicopathologic characteristics of middle and lower rectal carcinoma was also evaluated. METHODS: Cancer specimens from 56 patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma who received total mesorectal excision at the Department of General Surgery of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital were studied. A large slice technique was used to detect mesorectal metastasis and evaluate circumferential resection margin status. RESULTS: Local recurrence occurred in 12.5% (7 of 56 cases) of patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma. Distant recurrence occurred in 25% (14 of 56 cases) of patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma. Twelve patients (21.4%) had positive circumferential resection margin. Local recurrence rate of patients with positive circumferential resection margin was 33.3% (4/12), whereas it was 6.8% (3/44) in those with negative circumferential resection margin (P = 0.014). Distant recurrence was observed in 50% (6/12) of patients with positive circumferential resection margin; conversely, it was 18.2% (8/44) in those with negative circumferential resection margin (P = 0.024). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed significant improvements in median survival (32.2 ± 4.1 mo, 95% CI: 24.1-40.4mo vs 23.0 ± 3.5 mo, 95% CI: 16.2-29.8 mo) for circumferential resection margin-negative patients over circumferential resection margin-positive patients (log-rank, P < 0.05). 37% T3 tumors examined were positive for circumferential resection margin, while only 0% T1 tumors and 8.7% T2 tumors were examined as circumferential resection margin. The difference between these three groups was statistically significant (P = 0.021). In 18 cancer specimens with tumor diameter ≥ 5 cm 7 (38.9%) were detected as positive circumferential resection margin, while in 38 cancer specimens with a tumor diameter of < 5 cm only 5 (13.2%) were positive for circumferential resection margin (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that circumferential resection margin involvement is significantly associated with depth of tumor invasion and tumor diameter. The circumferential resection margin status is an important predictor of local and distant recurrence as well as survival of patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma. AIM: To clarify the relationship between circumferential resection margin status and local and distant recurrence as well as survival of patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma. The relationship between circumferential resection margin status and clinicopathologic characteristics of middle and lower rectal carcinoma was also evaluated. METHODS : Cancer specimens from 56 patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma who received total mesorectal excision at the Department of General Surgery of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital were studied. A large slice technique was used to detect mesorectal metastasis and evaluate circumferential resection margin status. RESULTS: Of the patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma. 25% (14 of 56 cases) of patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma. Twelve patients (21.4%) had positive circumferential resection margin. Local recurrence rate of patients with positive circumferential resection margin was 33.3% (4/12), but it was 6.8% (3/44) in those with negative circumferential resection margin (P = 0.014). Distant recurrence was observed in 50% (6/12) of Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed significant improvements in median survival (32.2 ± 4.1 mo, 95% confidence interval) CI: 24.1-40.4 mo vs 23.0 ± 3.5 mo, 95% CI: 16.2-29.8 mo) for circumferential resection margin-negative patients over circumferential resection margin-positive patients (log-rank, P <0.05) were positive for circumferential resection margin, while only 0% of T1 tumors and 8.7% of T2 tumors were examined as circumferential resection margin. The difference between these three groups was statistically significant (P = 0.021). In 18 cancer specimens with tumor diameter ≥ 5 cm 7 (38.9%) were detected as positi ve circumferential resection margin, while in 38 cancer specimens with a tumor diameter of <5 cm only 5 (13.2%) were positive for circumferential resection margin (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that circumferential resection margin involvement is significantly associated with depth of tumor invasion and tumor diameter. The circumferential resection margin status is an important predictor of local and distant recurrence as well as survival of patients with middle and lower rectal carcinoma.