2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.coms.2014.01.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pitfalls in Determining Head and Neck Surgical Margins

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
41
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
2
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The first prediction was based on the fact that current clinical practice recommends an age-independent excision margin width of ~1cm (38,39). Considering the predicted increase of local field size with age at diagnosis (Figure 3A), an age-independent margin width implies that, for the same tumor size, the area of precancerous tissue left behind after resection of a primary tumor is bigger in older patients (with larger precancer fields) compared to younger patients (with smaller precancer fields), see Figure 4.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first prediction was based on the fact that current clinical practice recommends an age-independent excision margin width of ~1cm (38,39). Considering the predicted increase of local field size with age at diagnosis (Figure 3A), an age-independent margin width implies that, for the same tumor size, the area of precancerous tissue left behind after resection of a primary tumor is bigger in older patients (with larger precancer fields) compared to younger patients (with smaller precancer fields), see Figure 4.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These issues related to the current standard of care have prompted the examination of optical technology and molecular diagnostics as a way to improve margin accuracy during head and neck oncologic surgery [45] . Certainly these technological advancements have been applied widely in the field of cutaneous malignancy, but have not been evaluated as thoroughly in mucosal disease of the head and neck [46] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[23] However, even at the present day, there has not been consensus between researches on what constitutes tumor involvement at the resection margin (including mucosal dysplasia or carcinoma in situ) and what constitutes an "adequate" margin of resection. [7,8,18] Though controversial, it seems reasonable to accept, based on studies, that 5 mm of healthy tissue around the tumor should be the minimum acceptable margin size for a clear surgical margin in any oral SCC. [7,19] Nevertheless, it sometimes happens that, the surgeon feels frustration when noticing that an appropriate surgical margin in the operation room presents a considerably decrease in size when is observed by the pathologist.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[10][11][12][13] In fact, even today, there are no universal guidelines that permit different pathologists to adopt the same histologic criteria regarding to surgical margin. [5,[14][15][16][17] This lack of agreement on what should constitute an "adequate" or "safe" margin of resection [8,18] have led to each pathology department to classify surgical margins according to its own experience or internal guidelines, thereby hampering the comparison of the results obtained in the different studies and its extrapolation to the clinical practice. [14] A recent systematic review concluded that a histopathologic margin of at least 5 mm is the minimum acceptable margin size that should be achieved in any oral SCC.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%