Jessica H Maxwell1, Lester D R Thompson2, Margaret S Brandwein-Gensler3, Bernhard G Weiss4, Martin Canis4, Bibianna Purgina5, Arpan V Prabhu6, Chi Lai5, Yongli Shuai7, William R Carroll8, Anthony Morlandt8, Umamaheswar Duvvuri9, Seungwon Kim1, Jonas T Johnson1, Robert L Ferris1, Raja Seethala6, Simion I Chiosea6. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Pathology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Woodland Hills. 3. Division of Anatomic Pathology, Department of Pathology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham4Now with the Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, State University of New York at the University at Buffalo and Erie County Medical Center, Buffal. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital/University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7. Biostatistics Facility, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 8. Department of Surgery, Head and Neck Oncology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham. 9. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania10Department of Otolaryngology, Veterans Affairs of Pittsburgh Health System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Positive margins are associated with poor prognosis among patients with oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). However, wide variation exists in the margin sampling technique. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the margin sampling technique on local recurrence (LR) in patients with stage I or II oral tongue SCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study was conducted from January 1, 1986, to December 31, 2012, in 5 tertiary care centers following tumor resection and elective neck dissection in 280 patients with pathologic (p)T1-2 pN0 oral tongue SCC. Analysis was conducted from June 1, 2013, to January 20, 2015. INTERVENTIONS: In group 1 (n = 119), tumor bed margins were not sampled. In group 2 (n = 61), margins were examined from the glossectomy specimen, found to be positive or suboptimal, and revised with additional tumor bed margins. In group 3 (n = 100), margins were primarily sampled from the tumor bed without preceding examination of the glossectomy specimen. The margin status (both as a binary [positive vs negative] and continuous [distance to the margin in millimeters] variable) and other clinicopathologic parameters were compared across the 3 groups and correlated with LR. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Local recurrence. RESULTS: Age, sex, pT stage, lymphovascular or perineural invasion, and adjuvant radiation treatment were similar across the 3 groups. The probability of LR-free survival at 3 years was 0.9 and 0.8 in groups 1 and 3, respectively (P = .03). The frequency of positive glossectomy margins was lowest in group 1 (9 of 117 [7.7%]) compared with groups 2 and 3 (28 of 61 [45.9%] and 23 of 95 [24.2%], respectively) (P < .001). Even after excluding cases with positive margins, the median distance to the closest margin was significantly narrower in group 3 (2 mm) compared with group 1 (3 mm) (P = .008). The status (positive vs negative) of margins obtained from the glossectomy specimen correlated with LR (P = .007), while the status of tumor bed margins did not. The status of the tumor bed margin was 24% sensitive (95% CI, 16%-34%) and 92% specific (95% CI, 85%-97%) for detecting a positive glossectomy margin. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The margin sampling technique affects local control in patients with oral tongue SCC. Reliance on margin sampling from the tumor bed is associated with worse local control, most likely owing to narrower margin clearance and greater incidence of positive margins. A resection specimen-based margin assessment is recommended.
IMPORTANCE: Positive margins are associated with poor prognosis among patients with oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). However, wide variation exists in the margin sampling technique. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the margin sampling technique on local recurrence (LR) in patients with stage I or II oral tongue SCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study was conducted from January 1, 1986, to December 31, 2012, in 5 tertiary care centers following tumor resection and elective neck dissection in 280 patients with pathologic (p)T1-2 pN0 oral tongue SCC. Analysis was conducted from June 1, 2013, to January 20, 2015. INTERVENTIONS: In group 1 (n = 119), tumor bed margins were not sampled. In group 2 (n = 61), margins were examined from the glossectomy specimen, found to be positive or suboptimal, and revised with additional tumor bed margins. In group 3 (n = 100), margins were primarily sampled from the tumor bed without preceding examination of the glossectomy specimen. The margin status (both as a binary [positive vs negative] and continuous [distance to the margin in millimeters] variable) and other clinicopathologic parameters were compared across the 3 groups and correlated with LR. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Local recurrence. RESULTS: Age, sex, pT stage, lymphovascular or perineural invasion, and adjuvant radiation treatment were similar across the 3 groups. The probability of LR-free survival at 3 years was 0.9 and 0.8 in groups 1 and 3, respectively (P = .03). The frequency of positive glossectomy margins was lowest in group 1 (9 of 117 [7.7%]) compared with groups 2 and 3 (28 of 61 [45.9%] and 23 of 95 [24.2%], respectively) (P < .001). Even after excluding cases with positive margins, the median distance to the closest margin was significantly narrower in group 3 (2 mm) compared with group 1 (3 mm) (P = .008). The status (positive vs negative) of margins obtained from the glossectomy specimen correlated with LR (P = .007), while the status of tumor bed margins did not. The status of the tumor bed margin was 24% sensitive (95% CI, 16%-34%) and 92% specific (95% CI, 85%-97%) for detecting a positive glossectomy margin. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The margin sampling technique affects local control in patients with oral tongue SCC. Reliance on margin sampling from the tumor bed is associated with worse local control, most likely owing to narrower margin clearance and greater incidence of positive margins. A resection specimen-based margin assessment is recommended.
Authors: Claudio Valotto; Giovanni Falconieri; Stefano Pizzolitto; Maria Angela Cerruto; Giovanni Brondani; Alberto De Gobbi; Filiberto Zattoni Journal: Arch Ital Urol Androl Date: 2011-06
Authors: Amy C Hessel; Mauricio A Moreno; Ehab Y Hanna; Dianna B Roberts; Jan S Lewin; Adel K El-Naggar; David I Rosenthal; Randal S Weber Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Yufeng Li; Shuting Bai; William Carroll; Dan Dayan; Joseph C Dort; Keith Heller; George Jour; Harold Lau; Carla Penner; Michael Prystowsky; Eben Rosenthal; Nicolas F Schlecht; Richard V Smith; Mark Urken; Marilena Vered; Beverly Wang; Bruce Wenig; Abdissa Negassa; Margaret Brandwein-Gensler Journal: Head Neck Pathol Date: 2012-12-19
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
Authors: Shaum Sridharan; Lester D R Thompson; Bibianna Purgina; Charles D Sturgis; Akeesha A Shah; Brian Burkey; Madalina Tuluc; David Cognetti; Bin Xu; Kevin Higgins; Juan C Hernandez-Prera; Dominick Guerrero; Manish M Bundele; Seungwon Kim; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Robert L Ferris; William E Gooding; Simion I Chiosea Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mark W Kubik; Shaum Sridharan; Mark A Varvares; Dan P Zandberg; Heath D Skinner; Raja R Seethala; Simion I Chiosea Journal: Head Neck Pathol Date: 2020-03-02
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: Arpan V Prabhu; Charles D Sturgis; Chi Lai; Jessica H Maxwell; Mihai Merzianu; Juan C Hernandez-Prera; Bibianna Purgina; Lester D R Thompson; Madalina Tuluc; Xiu Yang; Raja R Seethala; Robert L Ferris; Simion I Chiosea Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: David W Schoppy; Kim F Rhoads; Yifei Ma; Michelle M Chen; Brian Nussenbaum; Ryan K Orosco; Eben L Rosenthal; Vasu Divi Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 6.223