Tumor Bed Margins Versus Specimen Margins in Oral Cavity Cancer: Too Close to Call?

Author:

Villemure-Poliquin Noémie1,Roy Ève-Marie1ORCID,Nguyen Sally2ORCID,Beauchemin Michel3,Audet Nathalie1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Département d’ophtalmologie et d’oto-rhino-laryngologie – chirurgie cervico-faciale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada

2. Département de chirurgie, Service d’oto-rhino-laryngologie – chirurgie cervico-faciale, CISSS de l’Outaouais, Centre affilié universitaire avec l’Université McGill, Gatineau, QC, Canada

3. Département d’anatomo-pathologie, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada

Abstract

Introduction The routine assessment of intraoperative margins has long been the standard of care for oral cavity cancers. However, there is a controversy surrounding the best method for sampling surgical margins. The aim of our study is to determine the precision of a new technique for sampling tumor bed margins (TBMs), to evaluate the impact on survival and the rate of free flap reconstructions. Methods This retrospective cohort study involved 156 patients with primary cancer of the tongue or floor of the mouth who underwent surgery as initial curative treatment. Patients were separated into 2 groups: one using an oriented TBM derived from Mohs’ technique, where the margins are taken from the tumor bed and identified with Vicryl sutures on both the specimen and the tumor bed, and the other using a specimen margins (SMs) driven technique, where the margins are taken from the specimen after the initial resection. Clinicopathologic features, including margin status, were compared for both groups and correlated with locoregional control. Precision of per-operative TBM sampling method was obtained. Results A total of 156 patients were included in the study, of which 80 were in TBM group and 76 were in SM group. Precision analysis showed that the oriented TBM technique pertained a 50% sensitivity, 96.6% specificity, 80% positive predictive value, and an 87.5% negative predictive value. Survival analysis revealed nonstatistically significant differences in both local control (86.88% vs 83.50%; P = .81) as well as local-regional control (82.57% vs 72.32%; P = .21). There was a significant difference in the rate of free flap-surgeries between the 2 groups (30% vs 64.5%; P < .001). Conclusion Our described oriented TBM technique has demonstrated reduced risk of free flap reconstructive surgery, increased precision, and similar prognostic in terms of local control, locoregional control, and disease-free survival when compared to the SM method.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3