Literature DB >> 16127669

Surgical margin determination in head and neck oncology: current clinical practice. The results of an International American Head and Neck Society Member Survey.

Jeremy D Meier1, Dana A Oliver, Mark A Varvares.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to investigate the ways in which surgeons who perform head and neck ablative procedures on a regular basis define margins, how they use frozen sections to evaluate margins, and the effect of chemoradiation on determining tumor margins.
METHODS: A custom-designed questionnaire was mailed to members of the American Head and Neck Society asking members how they evaluate and define tumor margins.
RESULTS: Of 1500 surveys mailed, 476 completed surveys were received. The most common response for distance of a clear pathologic margin was >5 mm on microscopic evaluation. A margin containing carcinoma in situ was considered a positive margin by most, but most did not consider a margin containing dysplasia a positive margin. When initial frozen section margins are positive for tumor and further resection results in negative frozen section margins, 90% consider the patient's margin negative. Most surgeons sample the frozen section from the surgical bed rather than from the main specimen. Nearly half use wider margins when resecting tumors treated with neoadjuvant therapy. When resecting recurrent or residual tumors treated with previous chemoradiation therapy, most resect to the pretreatment margin.
CONCLUSIONS: No uniform criteria to define a clear surgical margin exist among practicing head and neck surgeons. Most head and neck surgeons consider margins clear if resection completed after an initial positive frozen section margin reveals negative margins, but this view is not shared by all. Most surgeons take frozen sections from the surgical bed; however, error may occur when identifying the positive margin within the surgical bed. The definition of a clear tumor margin after chemoradiation is unclear. These questions could be addressed in a multicenter prospective trial. (c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16127669     DOI: 10.1002/hed.20269

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Head Neck        ISSN: 1043-3074            Impact factor:   3.147


  56 in total

Review 1.  Current status of oral cancer treatment strategies: surgical treatments for oral squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Ken Omura
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Independent Predictors of Prognosis Based on Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma Surgical Margins.

Authors:  Marisa R Buchakjian; Timothy Ginader; Kendall K Tasche; Nitin A Pagedar; Brian J Smith; Steven M Sperry
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 3.497

Review 3.  Open questions and novel concepts in oral cancer surgery.

Authors:  Giancarlo Tirelli; Serena Zacchigna; Matteo Biasotto; Marco Piovesana
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-05-24       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Definition of "Close Margin" in Oral Cancer Surgery and Association of Margin Distance With Local Recurrence Rate.

Authors:  Kendall K Tasche; Marisa R Buchakjian; Nitin A Pagedar; Steven M Sperry
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 6.223

Review 5.  [Intraoperative frozen section diagnosis of head and neck tumors: possibilities, limitations, pitfalls and tips for the daily practice].

Authors:  A Agaimy; F Stelzle; J Zenk; H Iro
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 6.  Molecular margins in head and neck cancer: Current techniques and future directions.

Authors:  Katelyn O Stepan; Michael M Li; Stephen Y Kang; Sidharth V Puram
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 5.337

7.  ASO Author Reflections: Margin Analysis in Head and Neck Cancer-State of the Art and Future Directions.

Authors:  Dustin A Silverman; Michael M Li; Sidharth V Puram; Stephen Y Kang
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Buccal mucosa carcinoma: surgical margin less than 3 mm, not 5 mm, predicts locoregional recurrence.

Authors:  Wen-Yen Chiou; Hon-Yi Lin; Feng-Chun Hsu; Moon-Sing Lee; Hsu-Chueh Ho; Yu-Chieh Su; Ching-Chih Lee; Chen-Hsi Hsieh; Yao-Ching Wang; Shih-Kai Hung
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 9.  Determining Adequate Margins in Head and Neck Cancers: Practice and Continued Challenges.

Authors:  Michelle D Williams
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 10.  Will the mininvasive approach challenge the old paradigms in oral cancer surgery?

Authors:  G Tirelli; S Zacchigna; F Boscolo Nata; E Quatela; R Di Lenarda; M Piovesana
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 2.503

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.