研究动态
Articles below are published ahead of final publication in an issue. Please cite articles in the following format: authors, (year), title, journal, DOI.

颊癌的边缘状态、辅助治疗和复发。

Margin status, adjuvant treatment and recurrence in buccal cancer.

发表日期:2024 Jun 28
作者: Sneha Kamalakkannan, Firoz Rajan, Jeevithan Shanmugam, Subramaniam Ramachandran, Rajeshwari Muthusamy, Ezhir Selvan, Pirabu Sakthivel, Nithyanand Chidambaranathan, Muthuswamy Dhiwakar
来源: ORAL ONCOLOGY

摘要:

在危险因素驱动的术后辅助治疗框架内评估切缘对颊癌切除的预后重要性。连续接受过颊癌初次手术治疗的未接受治疗的患者。边缘定义为清晰(≥5 毫米)、紧密(1-4 毫米)和受累边缘(<1 毫米)。主要结果是切缘与局部无复发生存期(LRFS)的关联。根据是否接受辅助治疗进行接近边缘的亚组分析。寻求确定能够独立预测 LRFS 的以毫米为单位的数字切缘截止值。在纳入的 167 名患者中,清晰、闭合和受累切缘的频率分别为 50 例 (30%)、78 例 (47%) 和 39 例 (23 %),其中接受术后辅助治疗的比例分别为 52%、44% 和 98%。清晰保证金和接近保证金的 3 年 LRFS 相似(分别为 89% 和 96%),而涉及保证金的 3 年 LRFS 较差,为 65%。已证实受累切缘与较差的 LRFS 密切且独立相关。在接近的范围内,接受辅助治疗和未接受辅助治疗的 3 年 LRFS 相似(分别为 92% 和 100%)。确定边缘截止值为 2 毫米或以上,LRFS 接近清晰边缘。这项针对已切除颊癌患者的单中心队列研究表明,近距离边缘与受累边缘不同,且具有更好的 LRFS。边缘尺寸 ≥ 2 毫米且无其他不良特征的近距离切缘子集可能无需辅助治疗,而不会影响结果。版权所有 © 2024 Elsevier Ltd。保留所有权利。
To assess the prognostic importance of margin in resected buccal cancer within a framework of risk factor-driven postoperative adjuvant treatment.Consecutive, treatment naïve patients undergoing primary surgical treatment for buccal cancer. Margin was defined as clear (≥5 mm), close (1-4 mm) and involved (<1 mm). Main outcome was association of margin with local recurrence free survival (LRFS). Subgroup analysis of close margin was performed according to receipt or no receipt of adjuvant treatment. A numerical margin cut-off in mm that could independently predict LRFS was sought to be identified.Of the 167 patients included, the frequency of clear, close and involved margins was 50 (30 %), 78 (47 %) and 39 (23 %) respectively, among whom 52 %, 44 % and 98 % received postoperative adjuvant treatment respectively. Clear and close margins had similar 3-year LRFS (89 % and 96 % respectively), while involved margin had worse 3-year LRFS at 65 %. Involved margin was confirmed to be strongly and independently associated with worse LRFS. Within close margin, receipt and no receipt of adjuvant treatment had similar 3-year LRFS (92 % and 100 % respectively). A margin cut-off of 2 mm was identified at or above which LRFS approximated that of clear margin.This single center cohort study of patients with resected buccal cancer suggests that close margin is distinct from and has a better LRFS than involved margin. A subset of close margin, with margin size ≥ 2 mm and no other adverse features, might be spared adjuvant treatment without compromising outcomes.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.