Comparative analysis of resection boundaries depending on the defect elimination method in oral mucosal cancer

   Introduction. Surgical intervention remains the main method for treatment of the oral mucosa cancer. The generally accepted standard of the resection boundary that provides optimal local control is 5 mm. Adequate boundaries of indentation and choice of the reconstruction method are important issues facing specialists in head and neck tumors.

   Aim. To evaluate parameters of the resection edge in the surgical treatment of malignant neoplasms of the oral mucosa depending on the method of eliminating of the post-resection defect and its effect on the frequency of local relapse.

   Materials and methods. A retrospective analysis included 168 primary patients (50 % men and 50 % women) who received surgical treatment in the head and neck tumor department of the Republican Clinical Oncology Dispensary of the ministry of Health of the Republic of Bashkortostan (ufa) from 2019 to 2023. The median age of patients was 63 years (interquartile range (IQR) 55–69 years). most often, the primary tumor was located in the tongue – in 59.5 % (100/168) of cases. According to the method of post-resection defect removal, the patients were divided into 3 groups. In group 1, reconstruction was performed with local tissues (n = 71), in group 2 – with pedicle flaps (n = 41), and in group 3 – with revascularized flaps (n = 56). The median follow-up period was 18 months (IQR 8–28 months).

   Results. Resection boundaries in group 1 were 7.0 mm (IQR 5.0–12.5 mm), in group 2 – 6.5 mm (IQR 5–13 mm), and in group 3 – 12.5 mm (IQR 7.5–15.0 mm). The overall frequency of near/positive resection boundaries was 14.8 % (25/168). In group 1, it was 15.5 % (11/71), in group 2 – 19.5 % (8/41), in group 3 – 10.7 % (6/56). According to the analysis, relapse of the disease after radical treatment was noted in 32 % (55/168) of patients, of which 14.8 % (25/168) had a local relapse, 12.5 % (21/168) had a regional relapse, and 5.4 % (9/168) developed distant metastases. The frequency of local relapse in group 1 was 18.3 % (13/71), in group 2 – 23.8 % (10/41), in group 3 – 5.5 % (3/56). According to the analysis data, statistically significant differences in the boundary of indentation in the groups were revealed depending on the reconstruction method (p = 0.005).

   Conclusion. Based on the results of the present retrospective analysis, the choice of reconstruction method affects the resection boundary in real clinical practice. Limitations in the surgical indentation that surgeon faces when choosing a method for eliminating a post-resection defect are demonstrated.

1. The state of oncological care for the population of Russia in 2020. Ed. by A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinsky, A.O. Shakhzadova. Moscow: P.A. Herzen Moscow State Medical Research Institute – branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “NMIC of Radiology” of the Ministry of Health of Russia, 2021. 239 p. (In Russ.).

2. Zanoni D.K., Montero P.H., Migliacci J.C. et al. Survival outcomes after treatment of cancer of the oral cavity (1985–2015). Oral Oncol 2019;90:115–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.02.001

3. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Head and neck cancers. Version 3. 2021. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/head-and-neck.pdf.

4. Clinical recommendations “Malignant neoplasms of the oral cavity”. 2020. Available from: https://oncology-association.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/zno_polosti_rta.pdf. (In Riss.).

5. Jang J.Y., Choi N., Jeong H.S. Surgical extent for oral cancer: emphasis on a cut-off value for the resection margin status: a narrative literature review. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14(22):5702. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14225702

6. Anderson C.R., Sisson K., Moncrieff M. A meta-analysis of margin size and local recurrence in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 2015;51(5):464–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.01.015

7. Johnson R.E., Sigman J.D., Funk G.F. et al. Quantification of surgical margin shrinkage in the oral cavity. Head Neck 1997;19(4):281–6. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097–0347(199707)19:4<281::aid-hed6>3.0.co;2-x

8. Mistry R.C., Qureshi S.S., Kumaran C. Post-resection mucosal margin shrinkage in oral cancer: quantification and significance. J Surg Oncol 2005;91(2):131–3. DOI: 10.1002/jso.20285

9. Luryi A.L., Chen M.M., Mehra S. et al. Positive surgical margins in early stage oral cavity cancer: an analysis of 20,602 cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;151(6):984–90. DOI: 10.1177/0194599814551718

10. Schwam Z.G., Judson B.L. Improved prognosis for patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: analysis of the National Cancer Database 1998–2006. Oral Oncol 2016;52:45–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.10.012

11. Garg A., Mair M., Singhavi H., Bhati M. et al. Adequacy of surgical margins in oral cancer patients with respect to various types of reconstruction. South Asian J Cancer 2020;9(1):34–7. DOI: 10.4103/sajc.sajc_366_18

12. Sutton D.N., Brown J.S., Rogers S.N. et al. The prognostic implications of the surgical margin in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;32(1):30–4. DOI: 10.1054/ijom.2002.0313

13. Buchakjian M.R., Ginader T., Tasche K.K. et al. Independent predictors of prognosis based on oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma surgical margins. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;159(4):675–82. DOI: 10.1177/0194599818773070

14. Fowler J., Campanile Y., Warner A. et al. Surgical margins of the oral cavity: is 5 mm really necessary? J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022;51(1):38. DOI: 10.1186/s40463-022-00584-8

15. Ellis O.G., David M.C., Park D.J., Batstone M.D. High-volume surgeons deliver larger surgical margins in oral cavity cancer. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;74(7):1466–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.01.026

16. Hanasono M.M., Friel M.T., Klem C. et al. Impact of reconstructive microsurgery in patients with advanced oral cavity cancers. Head Neck 2009;31(10):1289–96. DOI: 10.1002/hed.21100

17. Liao C.T., Wen Y.W., Lee S.R. et al. Сlinical outcomes of taiwanese patients with resected oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma who underwent reconstruction with free versus local flaps. Ann Surg Oncol 2022;29(2):1130–40. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10524-x

18. Hsieh T.Y., Chang K.P., Lee S.S. et al. Free flap reconstruction in patients with advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma: analysis of patient survival and cancer recurrence. Microsurgery 2012;32(8):598–604. DOI: 10.1002/micr.22009

19. Forner D., Phillips T., Rigby M. et al. Submental island flap reconstruction reduces cost in oral cancer reconstruction compared to radial forearm free flap reconstruction: a case series and cost analysis. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;45:11. DOI: 10.1186/s40463-016-0124-8

20. Kubik M.W., Sridharan S., Varvares M.A. et al. Intraoperative margin assessment in head and neck cancer: a case of misuse and abuse? Head Neck Pathol 2020;14(2):291–302. DOI: 10.1007/s12105-019-01121-2

21. Bajwa M.S., Houghton D., Java K. et al. The relevance of surgical margins in clinically early oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 2020;110:104913. DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104913

22. Zanoni D.K., Migliacci J.C., Xu B. et al. A proposal to redefine close surgical margins in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017;143(6):555–60. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.4238