Postoperative Follow-Up Strategy in Patients With Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Sasaki, Makoto; Aoki, Takayuki; Karakida, Kazunari; Otsuru, Mitsunobu; Takahashi, Miho; Akamatsu, Tadashi; Sakamoto, Haruo; Ota, Yoshihide

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2010.11.039

Cited by 24 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the recommendation of Sasaki et al regarding a longtime follow-up program, their data showed that all secondary events were detected within 3 years postoperatively, of which 86.3 % were detected within the first year [16]. The role of long-term follow-up may be that of detection of second primary malignancies [16,19]. But others thought that a reduction in the follow-up period of 5 years was not acceptable, in particular, with regard to local recurrences [10], because patients were either unaware of recurrence, or if they were, they did not reschedule sooner their outpatient appointment [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…This dichotomy suggests that symptoms of recurrence among OCSSC patients might present earlier, and this group might not require structured PTSS whereas patients with SCC at other head and neck sites may benefit from a structured sequence of follow-up visits. Despite the recommendation of Sasaki et al regarding a longtime follow-up program, their data showed that all secondary events were detected within 3 years postoperatively, of which 86.3 % were detected within the first year [16]. The role of long-term follow-up may be that of detection of second primary malignancies [16,19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…If the purpose of PTSS is to identify recurrence, the tapering nature of the incidence of locoregional recurrence is such that the data provided by the majority of authors would advocate discontinuation of structured PTSS after the third year [6,8,9,13,16,[19][20][21]48] ( Table 4, Fig. 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, Merkx's study of early stage (pT1-2N0M0) tongue and floor of mouth cancer patients showed no statistical difference between the mean disease-free survival after treatment of the secondary events between symptom-directed group and routine follow-up group [7]. Others thought that, even when salvage modalities were introduced, the regional recurrences were associated with a dismal salvage rate [16].…”

Section: Resources and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…These authors thought that a reduction in the followup period of 5 years is not acceptable, especially with regard to local recurrences. Sasaki et al [16] also recommended a longtime follow-up program, but their study indicated that all secondary events were detected within 3 years postoperatively, of which 86.3 % were detected within 1 year. Shingaki et al [17] assessed the impact of neck metastasis and treatment modalities on patients with OCSCC who had metastatic neck nodes.…”

Section: Resources and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Post-therapeutic Surveillance Schedule for Oral Cancer: Is There Agreement?

Liu

Dierks

Bell

et al. 2012

Oral Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No international consensus was achieved about the follow-up strategies. The value of post-therapeutic surveillance schedule following oral cancer treatment is generally not in dispute, although patient-initiated symptom-driven visits can be effective in identifying tumor recurrence for oral cancer patients. The range of appointment interval schemes tends to identify a progressive escalation of visit intervals such that there are more visits in the first year than in the second, and fewer yet during the third. Patients may fail to comply with their clinic visit structure. Most references agree that follow-up beyond the third year is unnecessary and may waste medical resources as well as the time of both patient and surgeon. There is no agreement as to the need for or interval of imaging studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resources and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Resources and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Post-therapeutic Surveillance Schedule for Oral Cancer: Is There Agreement?

Liu

Dierks

Bell

et al. 2012

Oral Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Time patterns of recurrence and second primary tumors in a large cohort of patients treated for oral cavity cancer

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Routine follow‐up after curative treatment of patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is common practice considering the high risk of second primaries and recurrences (ie second events). Current guidelines advocate a follow‐up period of at least 5 years. The recommendations are not evidence‐based and benefits are unclear. This is even more so for follow‐up after a second event. To facilitate the development of an evidence‐ and personalized follow‐up program for OSCC, we investigated the course of time until the second and subsequent events and studied the risk factors related to these events. Materials and methods We retrospectively studied 594 OSCC patients treated with curative intent at the Head and Neck Cancer Unit of the Radboud University Medical Centre from 2000 to 2012. Risk of recurrence was calculated addressing death from intercurrent diseases as competing event. Results The 1‐, 5‐ and 10‐year cumulative risks of a second event were 17% (95% CI:14%;20%), 30% (95% CI:26%;33%), and 37% (95% CI:32%;41%). Almost all locoregional recurrences occurred in the first 2 years after treatment. The incidence of second primary tumors was relatively stable over the years. The time pattern of presentation of third events was similar. Discussion Our findings support a follow‐up time of 2 years after curative treatment for OSCC. Based on the risk of recurrence there is no indication for a different follow‐up protocol after first and second events. After 2 years, follow‐up should be tailored to the individual needs of patients for supportive care, and monitoring of late side‐effects of treatment.

show abstract

Comparison of mutation landscapes of pretreatment versus recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: The possible mechanism of resistance to standard treatment

Payungwong,

Angkulkrerkkrai,

Chaiboonchoe

et al. 2024

Cancer Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA high recurrent rate of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is a major concern in head and neck cancer treatment. The study of the genetic mutation landscape in recurrent OSCC may provide information on certain mutations associated with the pathobiology and treatment response of the OSCC.AimWe investigated the mutation landscape of matched pretreatment and recurrent tumors to understand the influence of genetic mutations on the pathobiology and clinical outcomes in OSCC.Methods and ResultsWe sequenced 33 formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) recurrent tumors, primary tumors, and primary tumors before recurrence that matched the recurrent tumors collected from Rajavithi Hospital during 2019–2021. We identified recurrent mutations from these samples by the Oncomine Ion Torrent‐based next‐generation sequencing on the 517 cancer‐associated gene panel. From the results, we found that the most commonly mutated gene in the cohort is a histone methyltransferase KMT2D (54.55%), implicating that aberrance in epigenetic regulation may play a role in oral cancer tumorigenesis. Functional protein association network analysis of the gene frequently mutated in the recurrent tumors showed enrichment of genes that regulate the cancer cell cycle, that is, MRE11A, CDKN2A, and CYLD. This finding was confirmed in the primary‐recurring matched pair. We found that recurrent tumors possess a small but recurring group of genes, with presumably the subclonal mutations driving the recurrence of the tumor, suggesting that the recurrent disease originated from a small fraction of the cancer cell that survives standard treatment. These genes were absent in the primary tumor with a good response to the standard treatment. On the other hand, we found an enrichment of DNA repair genes, namely ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD50, and MUTYH, in nonrecurrent tumors suggesting that the mutations in the DNA repair pathway may at least partially explain the different response to the standard treatment.ConclusionsOur pilot study identified pathways of carcinogenesis in oral cancer and specific gene sets that indicate treatment responses and prognoses in this group of patients.

show abstract

Postoperative Follow-Up Strategy in Patients With Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Cited by 24 publications

References 13 publications

Post-therapeutic Surveillance Schedule for Oral Cancer: Is There Agreement?

Post-therapeutic Surveillance Schedule for Oral Cancer: Is There Agreement?

Time patterns of recurrence and second primary tumors in a large cohort of patients treated for oral cavity cancer

Comparison of mutation landscapes of pretreatment versus recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: The possible mechanism of resistance to standard treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About