ArticleCancers2022
Close Surgical Margins in Oral and Oropharyngeal Cancer: Do They Impact Prognosis?
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraoperative fluorescence-guided fresh frozen sectioning for margin control in head and neck cancer: phase 2 clinical trial.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Association of Surgical Margin Distance With Survival in Patients With Resected Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2023Trial
- Resection margins in transoral oropharyngeal surgery: comparative analysis of robotic and VITOM Eagle-assisted exoscopic approaches.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Compatibility of fast tissue clearing with targeted fluorescence imaging and pathology analysis using clinical head and neck cancer biopsies.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessment and interpretation of the status of surgical margins following resective surgery for head and neck squamous cancer: a narrative review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Nomograms for predicting prognosis in postoperative lip squamous cell carcinoma patients.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Novel prognostic nomograms for postoperative patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma in the central region of China.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Variation of resection margins in oral cancer in dependence of tumor stage and subsite - a retrospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- A Matter of Margins in Oral Cancer-How Close Is Enough?Cancers · 2024Article
- Quality of Life After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Transoral Robotic Surgery for Oropharynx Cancer.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2024Article
- Article
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
Introduction. Mucosal margins exhibit a mean shrinkage of 30−40% after resection of oral and oropharyngeal cancers, and an adequate in situ surgical margin frequently results in a pathological close margin. However, the impact on prognosis remains unclear. We investigated the impact of a pathological close margin on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the clinicopathological data of 418 patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cavity or oropharynx who underwent initial surgery (with curative intent) at our institute between 2010 and 2016. Results. Of the total population, the pathological marginal status of 290 (69.4%) patients was reported as clear (>5 mm), 61 (14.6%) as close (>1 mm, ≤5 mm), and 67 (16.0%) as positive (≤1 mm). The 5-year DFSs were 79.3%, 65.1%, and 52% in patients in the negative margin (group 1), close margin (group 2), and positive margin (group 3) groups, respectively. The difference between groups 1 and 2 was not significant (p = 0.213) but the difference between groups 2 and 3 was (p = 0.034). The 5-year OSs were 79.4%, 84%, and 52.3% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference between groups 1 and 2 was not significant (p = 0.824) but the difference between groups 2 and 3 was (p = 0.001). In multivariate analysis, older age, advanced T stage, and a positive margin were independently prognostic of the 5-year DFS and OS. Conclusion. In conclusion, the OS of patients with close margins was no different than that of others when appropriate postoperative adjuvant and/or salvage treatment were/was prescribed. However, we could not determine the impact of close margins on locoregional recurrence given various biases in our study setting. A future prospective study is needed.
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.