| Literature DB >> 34452541 |
Nimna H Senarath1, Primali R Jayasooriya2, Bogahawatte S M S Siriwardena2, Wanninayake M Tilakaratne2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epithelial dysplasia (ED) at oral cancer excision margins is a frequent finding. Dysplastic epithelium at excision margins may not be similar to dysplasia in Oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) as malignant transformation has already taken place. Therefore, management of ED at excision margins should be different to that of OPMD. ED creates a dilemma in relation to further management of cancer patients, since there are no accepted guidelines. Therefore, the objective of this review is to analyze existing literature and to arrive at evidence based recommendations for the management of ED at excision margins.Entities:
Keywords: Epithelial dysplasia; Prognosis; excision margin; oral squamous cell carcinoma
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34452541 PMCID: PMC8629454 DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.8.2313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ISSN: 1513-7368
Classification of OSCC Excision Margins
| Guidelines | Clear | Close | Involved /positive | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| American college of pathologists | Commonly used cut off points to define close margins are 5 mm in general and 2 mm with respect to glottic larynx. However, values ranging from 3 mm to 7 mm have been used with success and for glottic tumors as low as 1 mm. Distance of tumour from the nearest margin should be recorded. | Mild dysplasia at a margin is considered low risk and negative, while severe dysplasia at margin is considered high risk and positive. Moderate dysplasia at margin is implies an intermediate risk and is reported as positive | ||
| Royal college of pathologists, UK (Helliwell and Woolgar,2013) | >5mm from the tumor | 1-5mmfrom the tumor | <1mm from the tumor | Additional category –Epithelial precursor lesion: included severe ED & Ca in situ as well. Excluded patients with invasive Ca within 5mm. |
| National comprehensive cancer network guidelines (2017) | Ca in situ or invasive ca at the margin | |||
| Batsakis (1999)and Sutton (2003). | No evidence of tumor within 5mm | Tumor within 5mm but not at the margin | Frank tumor at the margin |
Summary of Literature Review
| Study | Total Number of Patients (n) | Patients with Epithelial dysplasia(PED) | Local control local recurrence (LR)/regional (RR)-(PED), Distant metastasis(DM), Second primary tumor(SPT) | Disease free survival of PED (DFS) | Overall survival: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Cheng et al., 2019 | 1642 | 170 (10.35%) | LR : 30(17.65%)p<0.001 | At 5 years: 54.7% | 72% |
| Follow up period: 5 yrs | RR: 20(11.76%)p=0.49 | Between ED margin and positive margins, | Significant between ED margins and close margins. | ||
| DM: 7(4.12%)p=0.01 | not clear or close margins | Not with clear margins | |||
| SPT: 21(12.35%)p=0.14 | 5 years : | ||||
| DFS and OS : not significantly different in patients with dysplastic and clear margins. (p==0.37 and p= 0.38) | |||||
| 2.Gokaravapu et al., 2017 (India) | 425 | 57(13.41%) | Loco-regional recurrence : 16/102(not significant) | Mild/moderate/no ED association with survival p=0.06 | |
| Follow up period: 33-69 months | moderate ED : 29 | Moderate ED was significant: p<0.05 in multivariate and univariate analysis. | |||
| 3.Weijers et al., 2002. | 37 | 7 (18.9%) | LR: 5/7 (p<0.01) | ||
| 4.Sopka et al., 2013. (USA)* | 126 | 48(37%) | At 5years | At 5yrs | |
| Follow up 1-250 months | All OSCC tongue | LC: 80%vs 60(ED)% p=0.12 | 77% | ||
| 5.Kurita et al., 2010. (Japan)** | 148 | 13(8.8%) | At 5 yrs | ||
| LC: 81.8% | |||||
| Follow up:5 yrs | P<0.001 | ||||
| 6.Pu et al.,2016(China)* | 539 | 108(20%) | Have analyzed in different grade: see below | ||
| Follow up :150 months | |||||
| 7.Montebugnoli et al., 2014. (Italy) | 180 | 21 (11.6%) | LR of EPL: | ||
| Minimum follow up: 12 months | Epithelial precursor lesions*(EPL) | 5%(p=9.204 | |||
| 8.Jerjes et al., 2010. (UK) | 115 | ED:53(46.1%) | Death from LR and DM: significant association with ED p=0.005 | ||
| Follow up :3 and 5 years | Recurrence with ED: 30(69.8%) p<0.001 | ||||
| DM with ED: 9(17%) | |||||
| Regional metastasis: 8(15.1%0 | |||||
| 9.Wong et al., 2012. (UK) | 192 | All ED | Ca in situ | Ca in situ | |
| Follow up: minimum 24months. | :82 | :8/17 ,p=0.07 | : 8/29,p=0.83 | ||
| -42.70% | ED : 8/17 ,p=0.89 | ED: 12/29,p=0.5 | |||
| 10.Loree and Strong ,1990. (USA) | 398 | 9(2.26%) | LR: 33% | ||
*, Frozen section analysis on all patients; **, Frozen section analyzed in some patients and not categorized accordingly
Epithelial Dysplasia at Excision Margin
| Study | Patients | Prognosis | Remarks | |
| Mild epithelial dysplasia | Chen et al.,2019. | 53(31.18%) | - | No separate analysis on the effect of mild ED.Margin width not included along with grade of ED. |
| Gokaravapu et al., 2017. | 28/7(49.1) | Loco-regional recurrence: 10(p=0.307) | Comprehensive analysis of mild ED against age, sex, tobacco use, site , OSCC differentiation , width, LVI,PNI, T stage, Neck status and Loco regional recurrence. | |
| Sopka et al., 2013. | 15(31%) | At 5 years | Assessed for the impact on local control and disease free survival. | |
| Kurita et al., 2010. | 5/13(38.5%) | No recurrence | Assessed only for local recurrence rate. | |
| Pu et al., 2016. | 67(12.4%) | 5yr : OS: 70.4%, RFS: 74.9% | Compared with negative margins- mild ED, with re excision was not predictive of a worse DFS p=0.959, mild ED without re excision was predictive of worse DFS p=0.014, and RFS p=0.010. | |
| 21/67-40.3%) were re-resected | DFS:66.5% | |||
| Mild ED with re-excision vs mild ED: OS: 95.2% vs 50.3%, p<0.0001 | ||||
| DFS: 90.5% vs59.4% , p<0.0001 | ||||
| RFS: 100%vs 59.6%, p<0.0001 | ||||
| Moderate epithelial dysplasia | Chen et al.,2019. | 117(68.82%) | - | No separate analysis on the effect of moderate ED and margin width not included along with grade of ED. |
| Gokaravapu et al., 2017. | 29/57(50.8%) | Loco-regional recurrence: 6 | Comprehensive analysis of moderate ED against age, sex, tobacco use, site, OSCC differentiation, width, LVI, PNI, T stage, Neck status and Loco regional recurrence. | |
| Sopka et al., 2013. | 21(44) | At5years LC:49% p=0.02 | Significance changed when moderate grouped together with severe. See below. | |
| Kurita et al., 2010. | 1/13(7.6%) | No LR | Assessed only for local recurrence rate. | |
| Y Pu et al., 2016. | 23(4.3%) | At 5 years; OS: 86.1%, RFS: 77.3% ,DFS: 67.6% | Moderate ED against negative margins was predictive of worse RFS and DFS. | |
| Severe epithelial dysplasia/ Carcinoma in situ | Chen et al., 2019. | 41(24.26%) | Excluded | |
| Sopka et al., 2013. | 12(25%) | LC: 54% | Significance of severe ED only approached significance at 5 years, p=0.1, together with moderate ED it was a significant factor affecting LC p=0.02. | |
| Kurita et al., 2010. | 7 | LR: 42.9% | Assessed only for local recurrence rate. | |
| Pu et al., 2016. | 18(3.3%) | OS:50% | Severe ED vs Negative margins was predictive of worse RFS and DFS. | |
| Jerjes et al.,2010. | 72 severe ED | LR- | Dysplasia at margin is an excellent predictor of tumor spread. | |
| 37/43 patients with severe ED. | ||||
| Death from LR spread: 7/10(70%) | ||||
| Death from DM: | ||||
| 10/11(90%)p=0.271 | ||||