Page 84 - Read Online

according to the anatomical site. In this study the mean of of quantitative results. Therefore, the conclusions achieved
discrepancy observed for buccal mucosa was of 66.7%, 35% have to be taken with caution before its application to
for the tongue, a 33.3% for the floor mouth, a 16.7% for the clinical practice. Maybe, future studies involving a largest
retromolar trigon and a 15.4% for the mandibular alveolus. number of patients by stage or locations can provide more
Given these results, it seems appropriate to believe that reliable information for application to clinical routine.
knowing shrinkage of each margin according to its location
instead of shrinkage of the specimen, is what should guide In conclusion, tissue shrinkage on surgical margins of
treatment guidelines. [30] resection in oral SCC is a tangible phenomenon. The highest
percentage of retraction occurs at the time of resection.
When comparing margins discrepancies based on staging, Tumor staging should be established intra-operatively and
Cheng et al. described a mean discrepancies in T1/T2 no following histopathologic processing when the tissue
[20]
tumors of 51.48% and in T3/T4 tumors of 75% with a P value shrinkage phenomenon is already established. The surgeon
of 0.0264. These findings differed from those presented by should take the tissue shrinkage phenomenon into account
Mistry et al. who observed a mean shrinkage of 3.59 mm when affording surgical resection, while his/her actuation
[16]
(25.6%) for T1/T2 tumors and 1.4 mm (9.2%) for T3/T4 tumors must be based on tumor site and stage in order to provide
with a difference statistically significant (P < 0.011). In this adequate definitive tumor margins.
study, the authors hypothesized that late stage tumors may
show a smaller discrepancy due to tumor related destruction Financial support and sponsorship
of contractile elements surrounding cancer. However, Cheng Nil.
et al. [20] tried to explain this discrepancy alluding that late
stage tumors result in a greater microscopic invasiveness and Conflicts of interest
that the small number of cases presented by Mistry et al. There are no conflicts of interest.
[16]
could be considered an artifact. As we can see in view of the
results obtained, the degree of discrepancy between the pre REFERENCES
and post surgical resection margins based on tumor staging
does not obtain extrapolated conclusions mainly because 1. Stewart BW, Wild CP. World Cancer Report 2014. World Health
only two studies, whose tumor sites clearly differ from each Organization: Geneva; 2014.
other, were analyzed. 2. Warnakulasuriya S. Global epidemiology of oral and oropharyngeal cancer.
Oral Oncol 2009;45:309-16.
The results obtained in this review related to the phenomenon 3. Massano J, Regateiro FS, Januário G, Ferreira A. Oral squamous cell
of tissue shrinkage on the surgical margin of resection in carcinoma: review of prognostic and predictive factors. Oral Surg Oral Med
Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102:67-76.
patients with oral SCC, coincide with the results observed by 4. Spiro RH, Guillamondegui O Jr, Paulino AF, Huvos AG. Pattern of invasion
the author and his team. In our study, pending on its recent and margin assessment in patients with oral tongue cancer. Head Neck
publication, patients diagnosed of oral and oropharyngeal 1999;21:408-13.
squamous cell carcinoma and that underwent surgery with 5. Looser K, Shah J, Strong E. The significance of “positive” margins in
surgically resected epidermoid carcinomas. Head Neck Surg 1978;1:107-11.
reconstruction by means of microsurgical techniques, the 6. Yahalom R, Dobriyan A, Vered M, Talmi YP, Teicher S, Bedrin L. A prospective
analysis of surgical resection margins was performed in study of surgical margin status in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a
several stages: pre-resection, immediately post-resection in preliminary report. J Surg Oncol 2008;98:572-8.
the operating room, in fresh in the pathology department, 7. Kurita H, Nakanishi Y, Nishizawa R, Xiao T, Kamata T, Koike T, Kobayashi H.
Impact of different surgical margin conditions on local recurrence of oral
after fixation by the pathologist and under microscope [Figure squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 2010;46:814-7.
2]. In anticipation of the results, only indicate that a large 8. Hinni ML, Ferlito A, Brandwein-Gensler MS, Takes RP, Silver CE, Westra WH,
discrepancy between the margins intraoperatively measured Seethala RR, Rodrigo JP, Corry J, Bradford CR, Hunt JL, Strojan P, Devaney
and the margins microscopically analyzed was observed, with KO, Gnepp DR, Hartl DM, Kowalski LP, Rinaldo A. Surgical margins in head
and neck cancer: a contemporary review. Head Neck 2013;35:1362-70.
an average of 4.46 mm. The step in which a smaller reduction 9. Johnson RE, Sigman JD, Funk GF, Robinson RA, Hoffman HT. Quantification
of surgical margins was observed coincide with that reported of surgical margin shrinkage in the oral cavity. Head Neck 1997;19:281-6.
in this review, the step from formalin fixation to the microscope 10. McMahon J, O’Brien CJ, Pathak I, Hamill R, McNeil E, Hammersley N,
analysis, with an overall mean of 0.68 mm. Gardiner S, Junor E. Influence of condition of surgical margins on local
recurrence and disease-specific survival in oral and oropharyngeal cancer.
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;41:224-31.
Study limitations 11. Nason RW, Binahmed A, Pathak KA, Abdoh AA, Sándor GKB. What is the
The author of this paper recognizes the limitations inherent adequate margin of surgical resection in oral cancer? Oral Surg Oral Med
Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:625-9.
to this review. The study is limited to one database (Pubmed) 12. Woolgar JA, Triantafyllou A. A histopathologic appraisal of surgical
and only four articles were included in the final study margins in oral and oropharyngeal cancer resection specimens. Oral Oncol
according to our search strategy. The scarce number of 2005;41:1034-43.
patients observed by staging or by site in some articles, the 13. Brandwein-Gensler M, Teixeira MS, Lewis CM, Lee B, Rolnitzky L, Hille JJ,
variety of study designs, the absence of measurement post- Genden E, Urken ML, Wang BY. Oral squamous cell carcinoma: histologic
risk assessment, but not margin status, is strongly predictive of local
resection immediately in the operation room in two of the disease-free and overall survival. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:167-78.
studies, together to the fact that not all articles explain the 14. Tirelli G, Zacchigna S, Biasotto M, Piovesana M. Open questions and novel
surgical instruments used for tumor resection or how long concepts in oral cancer surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; Epub ahead
was from resection of surgical specimen to the measurement of print.
by the pathologist after histopathologic processing, make 15. Chiou WY, Lin HY, Hsu FC, Lee MS, Ho HC, Su YC, Lee CC, Hsieh CH,
Wang YC, Hung SK. Buccal mucosa carcinoma: surgical margin less than 3
that studies be quite heterogeneous as to obtain any type mm, not 5 mm, predicts locoregional recurrence. Radiat Oncol 2010;5:79.
156 Plast Aesthet Res || Volume 3 || May 25, 2016