Arpan V Prabhu1, Charles D Sturgis2, Chi Lai3, Jessica H Maxwell4, Mihai Merzianu5, Juan C Hernandez-Prera6, Bibianna Purgina3, Lester D R Thompson7, Madalina Tuluc8, Xiu Yang9, Raja R Seethala1, Robert L Ferris10, Simion I Chiosea11. 1. Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital/University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Otolaryngology, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 7. Department of Pathology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Woodland Hills, CA, USA. 8. Department of Pathology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 9. Department of Pathology, Hendricks Regional Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 10. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 11. Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: chioseasi@upmc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To improve margin revision, this study characterizes the number, fragmentation, and orientation of tumor bed margins (TBM) in patients with pT1-2 pN0 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral tongue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pathology reports (n=346) were reviewed. TBM parameters were indexed. In Group 1 patients all margins were obtained from the glossectomy specimen and there were no TBM. In Revision Group/Group 2 (n=103), tumor bed was sampled to revise suboptimal margins identified by examination of the glossectomy specimen. In Group 3 (n=124), TBM were obtained before examination of the glossectomy specimen. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Fewer TBMs were obtained per patient in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (57/103, 55% of patients with <3 vs. 117/124, 94%, ≥3 TBMs, respectively). The new margin surface was more frequently indicated in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (59/103, 57%, vs. 19/124, 15%, p<.001). If glossectomy specimen margins are accepted as the reference standard, then the TBM was 15% sensitive in Group 2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-29) and 32% sensitive in Group 3 (95% CI, 15-55). TBM fragmentation (23/103, 22% vs. 42/124, 34%) and frozen vs. permanent discrepancies (8/103, 3% vs. 3/124, 2%) were similar between Groups 2 and 3. The new margin surface was not indicated in 6 of 11 cases with discrepant frozen vs. permanent pathology findings, precluding judgment on final margin status. To facilitate the assessment of final margins, TBM should be represented by one tissue fragment with a marked new margin surface.
OBJECTIVES: To improve margin revision, this study characterizes the number, fragmentation, and orientation of tumor bed margins (TBM) in patients with pT1-2 pN0 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral tongue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pathology reports (n=346) were reviewed. TBM parameters were indexed. In Group 1 patients all margins were obtained from the glossectomy specimen and there were no TBM. In Revision Group/Group 2 (n=103), tumor bed was sampled to revise suboptimal margins identified by examination of the glossectomy specimen. In Group 3 (n=124), TBM were obtained before examination of the glossectomy specimen. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Fewer TBMs were obtained per patient in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (57/103, 55% of patients with <3 vs. 117/124, 94%, ≥3 TBMs, respectively). The new margin surface was more frequently indicated in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (59/103, 57%, vs. 19/124, 15%, p<.001). If glossectomy specimen margins are accepted as the reference standard, then the TBM was 15% sensitive in Group 2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-29) and 32% sensitive in Group 3 (95% CI, 15-55). TBM fragmentation (23/103, 22% vs. 42/124, 34%) and frozen vs. permanent discrepancies (8/103, 3% vs. 3/124, 2%) were similar between Groups 2 and 3. The new margin surface was not indicated in 6 of 11 cases with discrepant frozen vs. permanent pathology findings, precluding judgment on final margin status. To facilitate the assessment of final margins, TBM should be represented by one tissue fragment with a marked new margin surface.
Authors: Jennifer P Guillemaud; Rajan S Patel; David P Goldstein; Kevin M Higgins; Danny J Enepekides Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2010-08
Authors: Moran Amit; Shorook Na'ara; Leonor Leider-Trejo; Sharon Akrish; Jacob T Cohen; Salem Billan; Ziv Gil Journal: Head Neck Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Marisa R Buchakjian; Kendall K Tasche; Robert A Robinson; Nitin A Pagedar; Steven M Sperry Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.223
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: Paula Demétrio de Souza França; Navjot Guru; Sheryl Roberts; Susanne Kossatz; Christian Mason; Marcio Abrahão; Ronald A Ghossein; Snehal G Patel; Thomas Reiner Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 4.379
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: Elvis Duran-Sierra; Shuna Cheng; Rodrigo Cuenca; Beena Ahmed; Jim Ji; Vladislav V Yakovlev; Mathias Martinez; Moustafa Al-Khalil; Hussain Al-Enazi; Yi-Shing Lisa Cheng; John Wright; Carlos Busso; Javier A Jo Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 6.575