2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2015.09.024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimation of the width of free margin with a significant impact on local recurrence in surgical resection of oral squamous cell carcinoma

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…50 OSCC cases with free margins of ≤4 mm were related to an increased risk of local recurrence, while cases with free margins of ≥5 mm were not related to a significant risk of local recurrence. 51 According to El-Fol et al, a significant discrepancy was observed between intraoperative and histopathological margin assessment due to tissue shrinkage, and in addition such discrepancies were associated with the anatomic location of the tumour. For example, the buccal mucosa presented with a statistically significant mean discrepancy of 47.6% between the in situ and the histopathological margins of all close and positive margins.…”
Section: Histopathological Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…50 OSCC cases with free margins of ≤4 mm were related to an increased risk of local recurrence, while cases with free margins of ≥5 mm were not related to a significant risk of local recurrence. 51 According to El-Fol et al, a significant discrepancy was observed between intraoperative and histopathological margin assessment due to tissue shrinkage, and in addition such discrepancies were associated with the anatomic location of the tumour. For example, the buccal mucosa presented with a statistically significant mean discrepancy of 47.6% between the in situ and the histopathological margins of all close and positive margins.…”
Section: Histopathological Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Panel B shows that whereas multiple tumor bed margins show negative results, these are only narrowly clear of the tumor front, which is not included as a reference point for the pathologist. Several studies have ascribed poor outcomes with close final margins (less than 5 mm of radial clearance), with a three‐fold increased risk of recurrence and a corresponding negative impact on survival outcomes . Panel B demonstrates that even when a positive result returns (as seen in the anterior margin), these unoriented margins provide poor localizing information for the pathologist to communicate back to the surgeon during revision efforts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Close margins have been defined as 3 mm or less6, 4 mm or less8, and 1 mm to 4.9 mm7. An adequate clear margin is thought to be more than 3 mm6, more than 5 mm179, or 7 mm4. According to most authors, an adequate pathological margin is at least 5 mm.…”
Section: Margins According To Proximitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, because microscopic tumor extension from the tumor margin in a T1 mass does not exceed 3 mm 2 , they suggest that the surgical safety margin be redefined according to tumor size2. Yamada et al9 found that the risk of local recurrence did not differ significantly between surgical margins of 5 mm vs those more than 5 mm, whereas a significant difference between a clear margin and a close or tumor-involved margin was evident. They suggest that a surgical margin of about 5 mm is sufficient and thus that a surgical margin of more than 5 mm is not necessary for local control9.…”
Section: Locoregional Control With Surgical Marginmentioning
confidence: 99%