Impact of 3 mm margin on risk of recurrence and survival in oral cancer

INTRODUCTION

While positive surgical margins in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is generally considered an adverse prognosticator, the significance of close (≤5 mm) margins is more debatable, and has not been widely adopted as an indicator for radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 244 patients undergoing primary surgical resection of OSCC. The impact on local control (LC), disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) of margins at 1 mm intervals was studied.

RESULTS

65 patients had involved (<1 mm), 119 close (1-5 mm), and 60 clear (>5 mm) main specimen margins. Involved margins was predictive of DSS (p = 0.04), but not LC (p = 0.20) or OS (p = 0.09). Both the 2 mm and 3 mm margin cut-offs were significantly associated with LC (p = 0.02, and p = 0.01), DSS (p = 0.02, and p = 0.007), and OS (p = 0.03. and p = 0.005). In a 3-tier model, use of 3 mm for demarcation between close and clear yielded good separation between survival curves of clear (≥3 mm), and close (1-<3 mm) or involved (<1 mm). Final margins, determined after incorporation of frozen sections and extra margins taken separately, was significant for LC (p = 0.04), but not for DSS (p = 0.05) or OS (p = 0.17). On multivariate analysis, <3 mm margin, T-classification, nodal status, extranodal spread, and postoperative radiotherapy, were independent predictors of DSS and OS. For LC, only T-classification was significant.

CONCLUSION

A 3 mm main specimen margin is significantly associated with survival in OSCC and may be useful for demarcation between close and clear. Further study is required to determine any impact on survival of radiotherapy for patients with <3 mm margins as sole indicator for radiotherapy.

Extent of margin involvement, lymphovascular invasion, and extensive intraductal component predict for residual disease after wide local excision for breast cancer

In the present study, we identified predictors of residual disease after an inadequate wide local excision. Residual tumor was more likely when tumor was present at the inked margin, when more than a single radial margin was affected, and in tumors associated with lymphovascular invasion and an extensive intraductal component.

BACKGROUND

Positive margins after wide local excision (WLE) increase the probability of residual disease, and additional surgery is often recommended. However, residual tumor will be found in only two thirds of cases, suggesting that additional surgery can be avoided in many instances. In the present study, we sought to establish the frequency of residual tumor when the surgical margins are inadequate and to identify factors that predict for residual tumor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 720 consecutive patients who had undergone WLE for ductal carcinoma in situ and nonmetastatic breast cancer at a single unit from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2010.

RESULTS

At least a single radial margin was affected (either involved or close, defined as tumor < 1 mm from the margin) in 244 patients who had undergone WLE, and either the anterior or posterior margin was affected in another 103 patients. Reoperation was performed in 215 patients with affected radial margins and 9 others with affected anterior or posterior margins. Residual disease was found in 98 of 224 patients (43.8%) and was more likely when tumor was present at the inked margin, when > 1 radial margin was affected, and when lymphovascular invasion (LVI) or an extensive intraductal component (EIC) was present. The association with tumor size was of borderline significance. No association was found with tumor histologic type or patient age.

CONCLUSION

Additional evaluation is needed to determine whether additional surgery can be safely omitted in women with tumors without LVI or EIC when a single radial margin has been deemed to be close.

Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma of the Parotid: Very Close Margins and Adjuvant Radiotherapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The importance of adjuvant radiotherapy in patients with close margin resections for mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the parotid gland remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients who underwent parotidectomy for mucoepidermoid carcinoma with or without adjuvant radiotherapy at a single academic tertiary care center from 2000 to 2014 were identified. Included patients had negative but close (≤2 mm) surgical margins without other high-risk histopathological factors including advanced T-stage, positive nodal disease, lymphovascular or perineural invasion, or high-grade histology.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were identified, of whom 15 (79%) were observed postoperatively, while 4 (21%) underwent adjuvant radiotherapy. There were no significant differences in extent of parotidectomy, elective neck dissection, T staging, or tumor size between patients who were observed and those undergoing adjuvant radiation. There were no locoregional or distant recurrences in any patients at a mean follow up 74.3 months. Patients undergoing adjuvant radiation, however, had significantly more intermediate-grade as compared to low-grade histology (75% vs. 13%, difference 62%, 95% CI 4% to 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with negative but close (≤2 mm) surgical margins without other high-risk histopathological factors have excellent long-term locoregional control with surgery alone. The effects of adjuvant radiotherapy for those who have intermediate-grade disease remain uncertain.

Close surgical margins after radical prostatectomy mimic biochemical recurrence rates of positive margins

INTRODUCTION

The significance of a "close" but negative surgical margin after radical prostatectomy (RP) is controversial. We evaluated the effect of a close surgical margin (CSM) on biochemical recurrence (BCR) compared to a negative margin after RP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pathologic records of men who underwent RP from 2005-2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Margin status was classified as "positive" (PSM), "negative" (NSM), or "close" (<1mm from margin). BCR was defined as 2 consecutive postoperative prostate specific antigen measurements >0.2ng/ml. Probability of BCR was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and stratified by margin status. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine whether close margin status was associated with an increased rate of BCR.

RESULTS

A total of 609 consecutive patients underwent RP (93% robotic) and had complete pathologic data. A total of 126 (20.7%) had PSM, 453 (74.4%) had NSM, and 30 (4.9%) had CSM (mean<0.44mm). The 3-year BCR-free survival for patients with CSM was similar to those with PSM (70.4% vs. 74.5%, log rank P = 0.66) and significantly worse than those with NSM (90%, log rank P<0.001). On multivariable regression, positive margin status (HR = 3.26, P<0.001) was significantly associated with a higher risk of BCR, along with close margins (HR = 2.7, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

BCR for patients with CSM at RP is tantamount to PSM patients. CSM <1mm should be explicitly noted on pathology reports. Patients with this finding should be followed up closely and offered adjuvant therapy.

Role of adjuvant radiation or re-excision for early stage vulvar squamous cell carcinoma with positive or close surgical margins

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate whether re-excision or adjuvant radiation for stage I vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) with either a close or positive surgical margin improves recurrence-free survival.

METHODS

Patients with pathologically confirmed FIGO stage I vulvar SCC who underwent primary surgical management between January 1, 1995 and September 30, 2017 and had positive or close (<8 mm) surgical margins were included. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated and compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of 150 patients with stage I vulvar SCC, 47 (31.3%) had positive or close margins. Median follow-up time was 25 months (IQR 13-59 months). Twenty-one (44.6%) patients received additional treatment with re-excision (n = 17) or vulvar radiation (n = 4); 26 (55.3%) patients received no additional therapy. Patients with positive margins were more likely to receive additional therapy compared to patients with close margins (80% vs 35.1%, p = 0.03). The 2-year recurrence rates were similar between the no further therapy and the re-excision/vulvar radiation groups (11.5% vs 4.8%, p = 0.62). Local recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar between patients who received re-excision/vulvar radiation and patients who received no further therapy (p = 0.10 and p = 0.16, respectively). Subgroup analysis of the 37 patients with close margins demonstrated no difference in RFS or OS when patients received re-excision or adjuvant vulvar radiation compared to no additional therapy (p = 0.74 and p = 0.82, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, any additional treatment following primary surgical resection did not improve RFS or OS in stage IA and IB vulvar SCC. Larger studies are warranted in order to definitively determine the role of re-excision and adjuvant radiation in early stage disease.

Redefining adequate margins in oral squamous cell carcinoma: outcomes from close and positive margins

PURPOSE

Adequacy of surgical margins impacts outcomes in oral cancer. We sought to determine whether close and positive margins have different outcomes in patients with oral cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective data from 612 patients with oral carcinoma were analyzed for the effect of margin status on locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 90 cases (14.7%) had close margins and 26 patients (4.2%) had positive margins. Recurrences were documented in 173 patients (28%), of which 137 (22% of the study sample) were locoregional, and 164 patients (27%) had died. Among patients with close or positive margins, a cutoff of 1 mm optimally separated LRFS (adjusted p = 0.0190) and OS curves (adjusted p = 0.0168) whereas a cutoff of 2 mm was sufficient to significantly separate DFS curves (adjusted p = 0.0281).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with oral carcinoma with positive margins (< 1 mm) had poorer outcomes compared to those with close margins (1-5 mm) in terms of LRFS, DFS and OS. There is a suggestion that a cutoff of < 2 mm might provide slightly more separation for DFS.

What is the real prognostic value of close margins in oral oncology?

AIM

The surgical margin is usually considered an important prognostic factor in oral oncology. However, the real value of a close surgical margin and its relationship with survival is still unclear. Thus, the present report sought to identify the relationship between close surgical margins and overall 3-year survival, whilst also analyzing the association between such margins and recurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of 200 patients affected by oral squamous cell carcinoma were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into three groups: positive margin (0-2 mm), close margin (2-5 mm), and negative margin (>5 mm). The relationship between surgical margins and overall survival and recurrence rate was analyzed.

RESULTS

Surgical margins and reoperation were found to have no significant association with overall survival (P > 0.05). Overall survival was 63% in our sample. Specifically, this was 50%, 64.7% and 66.2% in patients with positive, close and free margins, respectively. Perineural invasion, pN, and locoregional or cervical recurrences were the factors most directly related to overall survival.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicate that surgical margins are not directly related to overall survival and other factors might significantly influence patient outcomes. Advanced T stage, node involvement, perineural invasion, and ECS are strongly linked with patient survival (P < 0.05). These findings should be carefully evaluated in patients with close surgical margins. Our results indicate that an aggressive adjuvant treatment of patients with close surgical margins could help in obtaining a similar pattern of overall survival with patients with negative margins.

Clinical outcomes of Taiwanese patients with resected squamous cell carcinoma of the upper and lower gum

OBJECTIVES

This large-scale cohort study was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of Taiwanese patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the upper versus lower gum.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2017, we identified 4244 patients with first primary SCC of the gum (694 upper gum; 3550 lower gum) who were treated with surgery either with or without adjuvant therapy. Of them, 1990 patients (329 upper gum; 1661 lower gum) enrolled from 2011 to 2017 had a higher number of histopathological variables and entered subgroup analyses. Five-year disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) rates served as outcome measures.

RESULTS

The 5-year DSS and OS rates of patients with upper gum SCC were lower than those of cases with lower gum SCC (65%/74%, p < 0.0001; and 55%/65%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Compared with lower gum SCC, upper gum SCC had a higher prevalence of the following variables: female sex, age ≥ 65 years, pNx (without neck dissection), no-betel chewing (2011-2017), no-smoking (2011-2017), and margin status ≤ 4 mm (positive and close margins, 2011-2017). On multivariable analysis, gum subsite (upper versus lower), age (≥65 versus < 65 years), pT (T3 - 4 versus T1 - 2), pN (N1 - 3 versus N0/Nx), depth (≥10 mm versus < 10 mm, 2011-2017), ENE (present versus absent, 2011-2017), and margins (≤4 mm versus > 4 mm 2011-2017, only DSS) were identified as independent adverse prognostic factors for 5-year DSS and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to lower gum SCC, upper gum SCC had less favorable 5-year outcomes. Wide resection margins are recommended to improve prognosis of upper gum SCC.

Outcome of Adjuvant Radiotherapy and Adjuvant Chemoradiation for Oral Cancers with Close Margins of Resection

Oral cancers comprise 50% of all head and neck malignancies in India which can be attributed to tobacco chewing. Advanced oral cancers are managed with surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy or adjuvant chemoradiation. There is paucity of studies regarding need for adjuvant treatment in oral cancers with close margins i.e. ≤ 0.5 cm after formalin fixation. This study aims at documenting the oncological outcome with regards to loco-regional control, disease-free survival, overall survival and complications of adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiation in operated oral cancer patients having close margins of resection. In this Retrospective cohort study, 163 patients with stage T1-T4 oral cancers operated between 2015 and 2019 who have fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria, received adjuvant treatment and could be followed up for at least one year were included. At the end of 45 months, the overall survival was 74.7% and disease specific survival was 82.7%. Among the 7 patients who defaulted radiotherapy, 4 patients succumbed to the disease. Complications were bone marrow depression (2 patients), dysphagia (17) and Trismus (1). Adjuvant radiotherapy should be given in oral cancer patients with close margins of resection since it improves the oncological outcome and disease specific survival and the benefit often outweighs the risk.