ArticleBMC cancer2019
A novel integrated platform for the identification of surgical margins in oral squamous cell carcinoma: results from a prospective single-institution series.
Article in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative Techniques That Define the Mucosal Margins of Oral Cancer In-Vivo: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Article
- Toluidine blue versus frozen section for assessment of mucosal tumor margins in oral squamous cell carcinoma.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Targeting Immune-Related Biological Processes in Solid Tumors: We do Need Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal surgical margins assessment is capital in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) management. We evaluated the clinical benefits of integrating intraoperative macroscopic margin (MM) assessment and narrow band imaging (NBI).
methodsSixteen OSCC patients eligible for surgery were prospectively enrolled. For each patient, 2 to 6 bioptic samples of MM and NBI margins were obtained and histologically analyzed for the presence of dysplasia and lymphocytes. Microvessel density was investigated by CD34 immunohistochemistry.
resultsTaken together, 104 specimens were analyzed, including 15% tumors, 33% MM, 33% NBI margins, and 19% MM-NBI overlapping margins. The NBI margins were closer to the lesion in 50% cases, while the same number of MM were more conservative than NBI, irrespective of the tumor site. The rate of histologically positive margins was similar among the two methods, akin to the microvessel density.
conclusionsMM assessment should be integrated but not replaced with the NBI technology to allow for more conservative surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.