Cargando…

Surgical margins of the oral cavity: is 5 mm really necessary?

BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common malignancy of the oral cavity. Primary treatment involves surgical resection of the tumour with a surrounding margin. Historically, the most commonly accepted margin clearance is 5 mm. This distance is controversial, with recent publications sug...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fowler, James, Campanile, Yael, Warner, Andrew, Laxague, Francisco, Fnais, Naif, Fung, Kevin, Mendez, Adrian, MacNeil, Danielle, Yoo, John, Palma, David, Nichols, Anthony
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9531519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36195903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-022-00584-8
_version_ 1784801919368167424
author Fowler, James
Campanile, Yael
Warner, Andrew
Laxague, Francisco
Fnais, Naif
Fung, Kevin
Mendez, Adrian
MacNeil, Danielle
Yoo, John
Palma, David
Nichols, Anthony
author_facet Fowler, James
Campanile, Yael
Warner, Andrew
Laxague, Francisco
Fnais, Naif
Fung, Kevin
Mendez, Adrian
MacNeil, Danielle
Yoo, John
Palma, David
Nichols, Anthony
author_sort Fowler, James
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common malignancy of the oral cavity. Primary treatment involves surgical resection of the tumour with a surrounding margin. Historically, the most commonly accepted margin clearance is 5 mm. This distance is controversial, with recent publications suggesting closer margins do not impact local recurrence and survival. The objective of this study is to determine the closest surgical margin that does not impact local recurrence and overall survival. METHODS: A retrospective review of the London Health Sciences Centre Head and Neck Multidisciplinary Clinic between 2010 and 2018 was performed. Demographic data, subsite, tumour staging, treatment modality, margins, and survival outcomes were analyzed. The primary endpoint was local recurrence free survival. Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Descriptive statistics, as well as univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression modelling were performed for all patients. RESULTS: Four-hundred and twelve patients were included in the study, with a median follow-up of 3.3 years. On univariable analysis, positive margins and margins < 1 mm were associated with significantly worse local recurrence-free survival, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival (p < 0.05), compared to margins > 5 mm. Patients with surgical margins > 1 mm experienced similar outcomes to those with margins > 5 mm. Multivariable analysis identified age of diagnosis, alcohol consumption, pathological tumour and nodal category as predictors of local recurrence free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although historical margins for head and neck surgery are 5 mm, similar outcomes were observed for margins greater than 1 mm in our cohort. These findings require validation through multi-institutional collaborative efforts. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text]
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9531519
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95315192022-10-05 Surgical margins of the oral cavity: is 5 mm really necessary? Fowler, James Campanile, Yael Warner, Andrew Laxague, Francisco Fnais, Naif Fung, Kevin Mendez, Adrian MacNeil, Danielle Yoo, John Palma, David Nichols, Anthony J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common malignancy of the oral cavity. Primary treatment involves surgical resection of the tumour with a surrounding margin. Historically, the most commonly accepted margin clearance is 5 mm. This distance is controversial, with recent publications suggesting closer margins do not impact local recurrence and survival. The objective of this study is to determine the closest surgical margin that does not impact local recurrence and overall survival. METHODS: A retrospective review of the London Health Sciences Centre Head and Neck Multidisciplinary Clinic between 2010 and 2018 was performed. Demographic data, subsite, tumour staging, treatment modality, margins, and survival outcomes were analyzed. The primary endpoint was local recurrence free survival. Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Descriptive statistics, as well as univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression modelling were performed for all patients. RESULTS: Four-hundred and twelve patients were included in the study, with a median follow-up of 3.3 years. On univariable analysis, positive margins and margins < 1 mm were associated with significantly worse local recurrence-free survival, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival (p < 0.05), compared to margins > 5 mm. Patients with surgical margins > 1 mm experienced similar outcomes to those with margins > 5 mm. Multivariable analysis identified age of diagnosis, alcohol consumption, pathological tumour and nodal category as predictors of local recurrence free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although historical margins for head and neck surgery are 5 mm, similar outcomes were observed for margins greater than 1 mm in our cohort. These findings require validation through multi-institutional collaborative efforts. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] BioMed Central 2022-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9531519/ /pubmed/36195903 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-022-00584-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Fowler, James
Campanile, Yael
Warner, Andrew
Laxague, Francisco
Fnais, Naif
Fung, Kevin
Mendez, Adrian
MacNeil, Danielle
Yoo, John
Palma, David
Nichols, Anthony
Surgical margins of the oral cavity: is 5 mm really necessary?
title Surgical margins of the oral cavity: is 5 mm really necessary?
title_full Surgical margins of the oral cavity: is 5 mm really necessary?
title_fullStr Surgical margins of the oral cavity: is 5 mm really necessary?
title_full_unstemmed Surgical margins of the oral cavity: is 5 mm really necessary?
title_short Surgical margins of the oral cavity: is 5 mm really necessary?
title_sort surgical margins of the oral cavity: is 5 mm really necessary?
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9531519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36195903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-022-00584-8
work_keys_str_mv AT fowlerjames surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary
AT campanileyael surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary
AT warnerandrew surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary
AT laxaguefrancisco surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary
AT fnaisnaif surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary
AT fungkevin surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary
AT mendezadrian surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary
AT macneildanielle surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary
AT yoojohn surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary
AT palmadavid surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary
AT nicholsanthony surgicalmarginsoftheoralcavityis5mmreallynecessary