Christopher Pool, Taelor Weaver, Junjia Zhu, David Goldenberg, Neerav Goyal
{"title":"Surgical Margin Determination in the Era of HPV-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer.","authors":"Christopher Pool, Taelor Weaver, Junjia Zhu, David Goldenberg, Neerav Goyal","doi":"10.1002/lary.29533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives/hypothesis: </strong>The goal of head and neck cancer surgery is the complete resection of tumor with a cuff of healthy tissue. A 5-mm margin is optimal but not always achievable in the oropharynx. We aimed to identify a consensus of definition and management of close margins for human papilloma virus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal cancer without other risk factors.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Descriptive survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey of the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) was conducted to evaluate the abovementioned objectives by presenting hypothetical scenarios and asking questions regarding management.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-hundred fifty-five AHNS members completed the survey (18% response rate). Close margins were defined as <5 mm, <3 mm, and <1 mm by 27.7%, 32.3%, and 32.3% of respondents. There was no significant difference in margin determination with experience level (P = .186). In an HPV-positive tumor with close margins, 51% chose postoperative observation. The remainder chose adjuvant radiation (22.6%), chemoradiation (1.9%), or re-excision of the wound bed (19.4%). There was no association between postoperative close margin management and experience level (P = .80).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Heterogeneity exists in the definition and management of close margins in HPV-mediated oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPSCC). Establishing a standard regarding close margins in HPV-mediated OPSCC may allow for the optimization of outcomes and help define best practices.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>5 Laryngoscope, 131:E2650-E2654, 2021.</p>","PeriodicalId":400976,"journal":{"name":"The Laryngoscope","volume":" ","pages":"E2650-E2654"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10797598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Laryngoscope","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29533","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives/hypothesis: The goal of head and neck cancer surgery is the complete resection of tumor with a cuff of healthy tissue. A 5-mm margin is optimal but not always achievable in the oropharynx. We aimed to identify a consensus of definition and management of close margins for human papilloma virus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal cancer without other risk factors.
Study design: Descriptive survey.
Methods: A survey of the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) was conducted to evaluate the abovementioned objectives by presenting hypothetical scenarios and asking questions regarding management.
Results: One-hundred fifty-five AHNS members completed the survey (18% response rate). Close margins were defined as <5 mm, <3 mm, and <1 mm by 27.7%, 32.3%, and 32.3% of respondents. There was no significant difference in margin determination with experience level (P = .186). In an HPV-positive tumor with close margins, 51% chose postoperative observation. The remainder chose adjuvant radiation (22.6%), chemoradiation (1.9%), or re-excision of the wound bed (19.4%). There was no association between postoperative close margin management and experience level (P = .80).
Conclusion: Heterogeneity exists in the definition and management of close margins in HPV-mediated oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPSCC). Establishing a standard regarding close margins in HPV-mediated OPSCC may allow for the optimization of outcomes and help define best practices.
Level of evidence: 5 Laryngoscope, 131:E2650-E2654, 2021.