Oral oncology · 2017
Improving margin revision: Characterization of tumor bed margins in early oral tongue cancer.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Prabhu Arpan V, Sturgis Charles D, Lai Chi, Maxwell Jessica H, Merzianu Mihai, Hernandez-Prera Juan C, Purgina Bibianna, Thompson Lester D R, Tuluc Madalina, Yang Xiu, Seethala Raja R, Ferris Robert L, Chiosea Simion I
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To improve margin revision, this study characterizes the number, fragmentation, and orientation of tumor bed margins (TBM) in patients with pT1-2 pN0 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral tongue.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pathology reports (n=346) were reviewed. TBM parameters were indexed. In Group 1 patients all margins were obtained from the glossectomy specimen and there were no TBM. In Revision Group/Group 2 (n=103), tumor bed was sampled to revise suboptimal margins identified by examination of the glossectomy specimen. In Group 3 (n=124), TBM were obtained before examination of the glossectomy specimen.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Fewer TBMs were obtained per patient in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (57/103, 55% of patients with <3 vs. 117/124, 94%, ≥3 TBMs, respectively). The new margin surface was more frequently indicated in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (59/103, 57%, vs. 19/124, 15%, p<.001). If glossectomy specimen margins are accepted as the reference standard, then the TBM was 15% sensitive in Group 2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-29) and 32% sensitive in Group 3 (95% CI, 15-55). TBM fragmentation (23/103, 22% vs. 42/124, 34%) and frozen vs. permanent discrepancies (8/103, 3% vs. 3/124, 2%) were similar between Groups 2 and 3. The new margin surface was not indicated in 6 of 11 cases with discrepant frozen vs. permanent pathology findings, precluding judgment on final margin status. To facilitate the assessment of final margins, TBM should be represented by one tissue fragment with a marked new margin surface.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pathology reports (n=346) were reviewed. TBM parameters were indexed. In Group 1 patients all margins were obtained from the glossectomy specimen and there were no TBM. In Revision Group/Group 2 (n=103), tumor bed was sampled to revise suboptimal margins identified by examination of the glossectomy specimen. In Group 3 (n=124), TBM were obtained before examination of the glossectomy specimen.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Fewer TBMs were obtained per patient in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (57/103, 55% of patients with <3 vs. 117/124, 94%, ≥3 TBMs, respectively). The new margin surface was more frequently indicated in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (59/103, 57%, vs. 19/124, 15%, p<.001). If glossectomy specimen margins are accepted as the reference standard, then the TBM was 15% sensitive in Group 2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-29) and 32% sensitive in Group 3 (95% CI, 15-55). TBM fragmentation (23/103, 22% vs. 42/124, 34%) and frozen vs. permanent discrepancies (8/103, 3% vs. 3/124, 2%) were similar between Groups 2 and 3. The new margin surface was not indicated in 6 of 11 cases with discrepant frozen vs. permanent pathology findings, precluding judgment on final margin status. To facilitate the assessment of final margins, TBM should be represented by one tissue fragment with a marked new margin surface.