Reports (MDPI) · 2026
Beyond Clear Margins: Oncologic Risk and Reconstructive Planning in Head and Neck Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma-A Structured Narrative Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Adam Iris-Iuliana, Vecerzan Liliana, Moldovan Bogdan, Miulescu Raluca-Gabriela, Ciucu Alexandru-Petru, Iacob Alina-Bianca, Ormenișan Alina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (HNcSCC) presents intersecting oncologic, functional, and reconstructive challenges. Although numerous clinicopathologic factors have been associated with recurrence, metastasis, and survival, their relationship with reconstructive complexity and patient-centered outcomes remains insufficiently studied. This review aimed to examine how established oncologic risk factors might inform reconstructive planning while distinguishing measured reconstructive evidence from hypothesis-generating clinical inferences.
METHODS: A structured PubMed/MEDLINE search conducted through 15 July 2026 was used to identify the literature addressing clinicopathologic prognostic factors in HNcSCC. Twenty-nine prognostic publications were retained for structured charting. Additional reconstructive, functional, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcome sources were identified through reference-list screening and were used solely for narrative contextualization. Because no dedicated multi-database systematic search of reconstructive outcomes was performed, the article is presented as a structured narrative review and hypothesis-generating research framework rather than a systematic review of reconstructive evidence.
RESULTS: The prognostic literature reported associations between adverse oncologic outcomes and factors including tumor size and depth, perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, poor differentiation, immunosuppression, recurrent disease, positive margins, nodal involvement, and extranodal extension. However, most of these studies did not measure post-excision defect characteristics, reconstructive technique, wound complications, functional recovery, scar quality, aesthetic outcomes, or patient-reported outcomes. Direct reconstructive evidence was limited and predominantly derived from site-specific, mixed-histology, technical, or methodological publications. Consequently, clinicopathologic factors should be regarded as potential upstream variables for future investigation rather than validated predictors of reconstructive outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports oncologic risk stratification more strongly than prediction of reconstructive difficulty or patient-centered outcomes in HNcSCC. Prospective studies should jointly measure patient, tumor, treatment-field, defect, reconstructive, functional, aesthetic, and patient-reported variables. The proposed framework is intended to guide such research and is not a validated clinical prediction model.
METHODS: A structured PubMed/MEDLINE search conducted through 15 July 2026 was used to identify the literature addressing clinicopathologic prognostic factors in HNcSCC. Twenty-nine prognostic publications were retained for structured charting. Additional reconstructive, functional, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcome sources were identified through reference-list screening and were used solely for narrative contextualization. Because no dedicated multi-database systematic search of reconstructive outcomes was performed, the article is presented as a structured narrative review and hypothesis-generating research framework rather than a systematic review of reconstructive evidence.
RESULTS: The prognostic literature reported associations between adverse oncologic outcomes and factors including tumor size and depth, perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, poor differentiation, immunosuppression, recurrent disease, positive margins, nodal involvement, and extranodal extension. However, most of these studies did not measure post-excision defect characteristics, reconstructive technique, wound complications, functional recovery, scar quality, aesthetic outcomes, or patient-reported outcomes. Direct reconstructive evidence was limited and predominantly derived from site-specific, mixed-histology, technical, or methodological publications. Consequently, clinicopathologic factors should be regarded as potential upstream variables for future investigation rather than validated predictors of reconstructive outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports oncologic risk stratification more strongly than prediction of reconstructive difficulty or patient-centered outcomes in HNcSCC. Prospective studies should jointly measure patient, tumor, treatment-field, defect, reconstructive, functional, aesthetic, and patient-reported variables. The proposed framework is intended to guide such research and is not a validated clinical prediction model.