Elsevier

Oral Oncology

Volume 111, December 2020, 105004
Oral Oncology

Impact of histological Oral Tongue Cancer margins on locoregional recurrence: A multi-centre retrospective analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.105004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Histological margins of less than 5 mm deliver worse LRFS and survival.

  • Histological margins of >5 mm should remain the goal for all stages of tongue cancer.

  • No benefit in survival was seen for histological margins >5 mm.

  • There was a possible further benefit for LRFS with margins between 5 and 7 mm.

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the effect of the histological margins (HM) upon locoregional failure (LRF) and overall survival (OS) for oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (OTSCC).

Materials and Methods

We undertook a retrospective review of 258 patients, across two institutions, treated for OTSCC between 2007 and 2016. A Cox-proportional hazards model was used to compare the relative hazard ratio of HM to the accepted standard of 5 mm margins for LRF and OS.

Results

The median follow up period was 4.8 years. The 5 year OS and freedom from LRF were 69% and 75% respectively. The Cox-proportional hazards model adjusted for age, DOI and LVI showed increasing risk of mortality and LRF with decreasing HM widths of <5 mm.

Conclusion

HM >5 mm were associated with a risk reduction of both LRF and mortality in OTSCC. This study supports >5 mm HM being the oncologic goal of surgery.

Introduction

Globally, cancer of the oral cavity represents 2.1% of all new cancer diagnoses, of which 90% are of squamous cell origin [1], [2], [3], [4]. In the Australian population, the tongue is the second most common site of oral cancer preceded by cancers of the lip, reflective of the high ultraviolet radiation exposure in Australia [1], [2], [3], [4]. In 2015, there were approximately 4500 cases of head and neck cancer (HNC; including lip) diagnosed in Australia of which 526 were oral tongue [5].

The standard treatment of oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma (OTSCC) involves primary surgical resection, with or without cervical lymph node dissection and adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) or chemoradiotherapy (aCRT) when indicated [6], [7], [8]. Cervical lymph node dissection is typically undertaken if nodes are assessed as being involved or prophylactically if the tumour depth of invasion (DOI) is ≥4 mm, the role of dissection for DOI between 2 and 4 mm is debated [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. This is in accordance with standard protocols of the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines [14]. The overarching goal of oncologic surgery in oral cancer must be complete tumour resection with histological verification of tumour-free margins. An involved tumour histological margin (HM)1 has been demonstrated to have a significant impact on locoregional failure (LRF) and overall survival (OS) [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

There is ongoing conjecture regarding the optimal HM to deliver an acceptable rate of local recurrence whilst minimising surgical morbidity [20]. The Royal College of Pathologists classifies HM of oral cavity cancers of <1 mm as involved, 1–5 mm as close and >5 mm as clear, this classification is also the position of the Royal Australasian Royal College of Pathologists and the NCCN [21], [22].

There have been a range of HM suggested as delivering adequate reduction in risk for LRF in the literature, ranging from 1 mm to 10 mm [18], [19], [20], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Whilst the literature is not entirely congruent on the acceptable margin for achieving acceptable local recurrence rates, the NCCN recommends a surgical margin (SM) of between 10 and 15 mm to facilitate a minimum 5 mm HM, allowing for specimen shrinkage during formalin fixation [14], [34].

Section snippets

Patients and methods

In this study the medical records of consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection for OTSCC at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre between January 2007 and December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 258 patients were included in the study. The study received multisite ethics approval (HREC/17/PMCC/220). The exclusion criteria were patients who had previous or a concurrent HNSCC. HM were classified as: involved (<1 mm; SCC in-situ was classified

Results

In total, 258 patients were eligible for inclusion in the study with a median follow-up period of 4.8 years. The baseline characteristics are described in Table 1. The mean age was 61 years old with an equal sex distribution. Current or ex-smokers comprised 55% (n = 141) of the study population and the majority (53%) of patients had T1 disease, 35% T2 and a combined 12% for T3 and T4 disease according to AJCC 7th edition staging. In total, 135 (52%) of the patients had adjuvant treatment with

Discussion

We present the findings of a large, retrospective, multi-institutional study on the adequacy of HM in OTSCC. Surgery is the preferred initial treatment of choice for OTSCC of any T stage. This large contemporary consecutive series of OTSCC patients with a majority of early stage T1/2 were treated in two tertiary referral head and neck cancer centers. Our results suggest worse local control and OS for patients having close or involved HM after initial surgical treatment, independent of age, DOI,

Conclusion

Initial surgical resection of oral tongue SCC (OTSCC) is preferred. An HM of the primary tumour >5 mm is recommended for improved locoregional control and OS regardless of subsequent revision surgery and/or aRT/aCRT. The oncologic aim of OTSCC surgery is to achieve >5 mm HM to maximise locoregional control and OS.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the patients whose data contributed to this study.

References (41)

  • D.A. Mitchell et al.

    Margins and survival in oral cancer

    Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg

    (2018)
  • M. Weijers et al.

    The status of the deep surgical margins in tongue and floor of mouth squamous cell carcinoma and risk of local recurrence; an analysis of 68 patients

    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg

    (2004)
  • A. Singh et al.

    Optimum surgical margins in squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue: Is the current definition adequate?

    Oral Oncol

    (2020)
  • O.G. Ellis et al.

    High-volume surgeons deliver larger surgical margins in oral cavity cancer

    J Oral Maxillofac Surg

    (2016)
  • A. Ariyawardana et al.

    Trends of lip, oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers in Australia 1982–2008: overall good news but with rising rates in the oropharynx

    BMC Cancer

    (2013)
  • A. Jemal et al.

    Global cancer statistics

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2011)
  • C.S. Farah et al.

    Oral cancer in Australia 1982–2008: a growing need for opportunistic screening and prevention

    Aust Dent J

    (2014)
  • Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: head and neck including lip. Canberra: AIHW, 2019. Australian...
  • T.A. Iseli et al.

    Are wider surgical margins needed for early oral tongue cancer?

    J Laryngol Otol

    (2012)
  • R.J. Oliver et al.

    Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev

    (2007)
  • Cited by (10)

    • Application and accuracy of ultrasound-guided resections of tongue cancer

      2022, Oral Oncology
      Citation Excerpt :

      The most important outcome of this study is that US-guided SCCT resections contributed to a statistically significant more than threefold increase in free margin status and a statistically significant threefold decrease in positive margin status compared to conventional treatment. There is ongoing debate about the definition of close margin status; different studies search for a cut-off margin distance that significantly reduces the chance of recurrence without excessive removal of healthy tongue tissue [6,20–25]. However, there is a consensus that a positive margin status as defined in this study (i.e. < 1 mm) negatively impacts disease-free survival and local recurrence [24–27].

    • The impact of travel distance to treatment centre on oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma survival and recurrence

      2022, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      Follow-up continued until October 2020, with 19 patients (7.8%) lost to follow-up. This cohort was the subject of a previous investigation into the role of surgical margins in determining outcomes in OTSCC10. All cases were discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text