ReviewFrontiers in oncology2021
Performance of Intraoperative Assessment of Resection Margins in Oral Cancer Surgery: A Review of Literature.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for the Diagnosis of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Near-infrared fluorescence imaging-guided surgery using cRGD-ZW800 to improve surgical resection margins in oral cancer: a phase I/II feasibility trial.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Intraoperative fluorescence-guided fresh frozen sectioning for margin control in head and neck cancer: phase 2 clinical trial.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Article
- Three-Dimensional Surgical Planning in Mandibular Cancer: A Decade of Clinical Experience and Outcomes.Cancers · 2026Article
- Delineating precise surgical resection areas: recent advances in NIR-II fluorescence imaging molecular probes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Establishing molecular biomarkers for efficient demarcation of tumor and non-tumor tissue in oral squamous cell carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Compatibility of fast tissue clearing with targeted fluorescence imaging and pathology analysis using clinical head and neck cancer biopsies.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessment of the bony resection margin distance in bone-invasive oral cancer using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Association of the Specimen and Tumor Bed Margin Status with Local Recurrence and Survival in Open Partial Laryngectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Best practices and future challenges in the treatment of oral cancer.Innovative surgical sciences · 2023Article
- Review
- High-ResolutionJournal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAchieving adequate resection margins during oral cancer surgery is important to improve patient prognosis. Surgeons have the delicate task of achieving an adequate resection and safeguarding satisfactory remaining function and acceptable physical appearance, while relying on visual inspection, palpation, and preoperative imaging. Intraoperative assessment of resection margins (IOARM) is a multidisciplinary effort, which can guide towards adequate resections. Different forms of IOARM are currently used, but it is unknown how accurate these methods are in predicting margin status. Therefore, this review aims to investigate: 1) the IOARM methods currently used during oral cancer surgery, 2) their performance, and 3) their clinical relevance.
methodsA literature search was performed in the following databases: Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar (from inception to January 23, 2020). IOARM performance was assessed in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in predicting margin status, and the reduction of inadequate margins. Clinical relevance (i.e., overall survival, local recurrence, regional recurrence, local recurrence-free survival, disease-specific survival, adjuvant therapy) was recorded if available.
resultsEighteen studies were included in the review, of which 10 for soft tissue and 8 for bone. For soft tissue, defect-driven IOARM-studies showed the average accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 90.9%, 47.6%, and 84.4%, and specimen-driven IOARM-studies showed, 91.5%, 68.4%, and 96.7%, respectively. For bone, specimen-driven IOARM-studies performed better than defect-driven, with an average accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 96.6%, 81.8%, and 98%, respectively. For both, soft tissue and bone, IOARM positively impacts patient outcome.
conclusionIOARM improves margin-status, especially the specimen-driven IOARM has higher performance compared to defect-driven IOARM. However, this conclusion is limited by the low number of studies reporting performance results for defect-driven IOARM. The current methods suffer from inherent disadvantages, namely their subjective character and the fact that only a small part of the resection surface can be assessed in a short time span, causing sampling errors. Therefore, a solution should be sought in the field of objective techniques that can rapidly assess the whole resection surface.
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.