Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
Intraoperative Margin Assessment Methods in Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание 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.
Caraway John, Millay David, Zarrella Dominique, Kim Ha Eun, Wrozek Taylor, Yang Alex, Zamani Michael, Watson Nora, Heckman Christopher, Garrett Samuel, Orestes Michael
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding the superiority of specimen-based versus tumor bed-based intraoperative margin analysis in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC). The purpose of this study is to perform the first meta-analysis examining intraoperative margin assessment methods in OCSCC with the goal of determining if there is a significant difference in patient outcomes between specimen-driven and tumor bed-driven margin analysis.
DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.
REVIEW METHODS: Studies met inclusion criteria if they conducted intraoperative specimen-driven and tumor bed-driven margin analysis in patients with OCSCC and reported patient outcomes. Random effects meta-analyses were used to analyze the compiled data.
RESULTS: The literature search returned 1988 articles for initial review of which 9 (1240 participants) met criteria for inclusion and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that a specimen-based approach is associated with higher intraoperative re-resection rate (P < .05), significantly lower final positive margin rate (P < .05), and decreased local recurrence when compared to the tumor bed-based approach (P < .05). However, there was no significant difference in overall recurrence when comparing intraoperative margin analysis methods (P > .05). Additionally, none of the included studies noted a significant difference in survival outcomes between tumor bed versus specimen-based methods.
CONCLUSION: Specimen-based frozen margin analysis in OCSCC results in lower false negative rates and improved local control; however, there is no significant difference in overall recurrence or survival when comparing specimen-based vs tumor bed-based techniques.
DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.
REVIEW METHODS: Studies met inclusion criteria if they conducted intraoperative specimen-driven and tumor bed-driven margin analysis in patients with OCSCC and reported patient outcomes. Random effects meta-analyses were used to analyze the compiled data.
RESULTS: The literature search returned 1988 articles for initial review of which 9 (1240 participants) met criteria for inclusion and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that a specimen-based approach is associated with higher intraoperative re-resection rate (P < .05), significantly lower final positive margin rate (P < .05), and decreased local recurrence when compared to the tumor bed-based approach (P < .05). However, there was no significant difference in overall recurrence when comparing intraoperative margin analysis methods (P > .05). Additionally, none of the included studies noted a significant difference in survival outcomes between tumor bed versus specimen-based methods.
CONCLUSION: Specimen-based frozen margin analysis in OCSCC results in lower false negative rates and improved local control; however, there is no significant difference in overall recurrence or survival when comparing specimen-based vs tumor bed-based techniques.