Eric A Dik1, Stefan M Willems2, Norbertus A Ipenburg3, Sven O Adriaansens3, Antoine J W P Rosenberg3, Robert J J van Es3. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, G.05.129, PO Box 85500, NL 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: eric.dik@mumc.nl. 2. Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, NL 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, G.05.129, PO Box 85500, NL 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The treatment strategy of early stage oral squamous cell carcinoma's (OSCC) resected with close or involved margins is a returning point of discussion. In this study we reviewed the consequences of re-resection (RR), postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) or watchful waiting (WW). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two-hundred patients with a primary resected Stage 1-2 OSCC of the tongue, floor of the mouth and cheek were included and retrospectively analysed. Local recurrence ratio was related to margin status, unfavourable histological parameters (spidery infiltrative, peri-neural and vascular-invasive growth) and postoperative treatment modality. 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) was calculated in relation to margin status. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 200 (11%) patients had pathological positive margins (PM), 126 (63%) close margins (CM), and 52 (26%) free margins (FM). OS and DSS were not significantly different between these groups. Nine of 200 (4.5%) patients developed local recurrent disease. Two (9.1%) had a PM, five (4.0%) a CM and two (3.8%) a FM. Of the nine recurrences, five patients had undergone PORT, one a RR, and three follow-up. Watchful waiting for CM ⩾3 mm with ⩽2 unfavourable histological parameters showed, besides margin status no significant differences with the FM group. CONCLUSION: With this treatment strategy, the local recurrence rate was 4.5%. No evidence was found for local adjuvant treatment in case of close margins ⩾3 mm with ⩽2 unfavourable histological parameters. Current data do not support the use of one treatment modality above any other.
OBJECTIVES: The treatment strategy of early stage oral squamous cell carcinoma's (OSCC) resected with close or involved margins is a returning point of discussion. In this study we reviewed the consequences of re-resection (RR), postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) or watchful waiting (WW). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two-hundred patients with a primary resected Stage 1-2 OSCC of the tongue, floor of the mouth and cheek were included and retrospectively analysed. Local recurrence ratio was related to margin status, unfavourable histological parameters (spidery infiltrative, peri-neural and vascular-invasive growth) and postoperative treatment modality. 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) was calculated in relation to margin status. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 200 (11%) patients had pathological positive margins (PM), 126 (63%) close margins (CM), and 52 (26%) free margins (FM). OS and DSS were not significantly different between these groups. Nine of 200 (4.5%) patients developed local recurrent disease. Two (9.1%) had a PM, five (4.0%) a CM and two (3.8%) a FM. Of the nine recurrences, five patients had undergone PORT, one a RR, and three follow-up. Watchful waiting for CM ⩾3 mm with ⩽2 unfavourable histological parameters showed, besides margin status no significant differences with the FM group. CONCLUSION: With this treatment strategy, the local recurrence rate was 4.5%. No evidence was found for local adjuvant treatment in case of close margins ⩾3 mm with ⩽2 unfavourable histological parameters. Current data do not support the use of one treatment modality above any other.
Authors: Daniella Karassawa Zanoni; Jocelyn C Migliacci; Bin Xu; Nora Katabi; Pablo H Montero; Ian Ganly; Jatin P Shah; Richard J Wong; Ronald A Ghossein; Snehal G Patel Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Eran Fridman; Shorook Na'ara; Jaiprakash Agarwal; Moran Amit; Gideon Bachar; Andrea Bolzoni Villaret; Jose Brandao; Claudio R Cernea; Pankaj Chaturvedi; Jonathan Clark; Ardalan Ebrahimi; Dan M Fliss; Sashikanth Jonnalagadda; Hugo F Kohler; Luiz P Kowalski; Matthias Kreppel; Chun-Ta Liao; Snehal G Patel; Rajan S Patel; K Thomas Robbins; Jatin P Shah; Thomas Shpitzer; Tzu-Chen Yen; Joachim E Zöller; Ziv Gil Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 6.860
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
Authors: Roeland W H Smits; Cornelia G F van Lanschot; Yassine Aaboubout; Maria de Ridder; Vincent Noordhoek Hegt; Elisa M Barroso; Cees A Meeuwis; Aniel Sewnaik; Jose A Hardillo; Dominiek Monserez; Stijn Keereweer; Hetty Mast; Ivo Ten Hove; Tom C Bakker Schut; Robert J Baatenburg de Jong; Gerwin J Puppels; Senada Koljenović Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Robert Pola; Eliška Böhmová; Marcela Filipová; Michal Pechar; Jan Pankrác; David Větvička; Tomáš Olejár; Martina Kabešová; Pavla Poučková; Luděk Šefc; Michal Zábrodský; Olga Janoušková; Jan Bouček; Tomáš Etrych Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 6.321