ArticleVeterinary and comparative oncology2026
Surgical Margins Required for the Complete Excision of Canine Oral Melanomas.
Article in Veterinary and comparative oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral malignant melanoma (OMM) is the most common canine oral neoplasm. Complete excision is recognised as the mainstay of treatment in the absence of distant metastasis, but recommended surgical margins are unvalidated. This study investigates the surgical margins required for complete excision of canine OMMs. We hypothesised that surgical margins 10-15 mm wide and a qualitative deep margin (bone, fascia or full-thickness tissue excision) would be adequate for complete local excision of OMMs. Margins required to excise canine oral melanocytomas are also unknown; a secondary objective was to investigate this. Cases were retrospectively collected from two referral centres and a veterinary pathology laboratory. Histologic diagnosis, en bloc excision of gross tumour, surgical margin and histologic margins were required for inclusion. Tumours were categorised based on surgical margin width (Group A < 10 mm, Group B 10-15 mm and Group C > 15 mm). A qualitative deep margin was required for Groups B and C, but not Group A, to include marginal excision cases. Histologic margins were classified by the R tumour classification scheme. Twenty-eight tumours were included, comprising 25 OMMs and three melanocytomas. R0 rates for OMMs were 56% (10/17) in Group A, 100% (7/7) in Group B and 100% (2/2) in Group C. Surgical margins ≥ 10 mm were significantly (p = 0.03) more likely to result in R0 classification. The three melanocytomas were all classified as R0, with < 10 mm surgical margins. Results suggest that surgical margins 10-15 mm wide and a qualitative deep margin may be adequate for complete excision of OMMs.
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.