Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background This multicenter study examines the impact of stratified surgical margins on treatment outcomes in oral SCC. Methods Margins were stratified into 1 mm increments from 0 to ≥ 5 mm. Outcomes included local recurrence, overall and disease‐specific survivals. Sub‐analyses assessed the impact of margin status by risk factors, oral subsites, and peripheral versus deep margins. Results Among 2737 patients, ≥ 2 to < 3 mm margins were associated with improved outcomes compared to 0 mm. Further benefits were observed in the ≥ 4 to < 5 mm group. The differences between these two groups were not statistically significant. Improved outcomes were observed with ≥ 2 mm deep margins, but not for peripheral margins. High‐risk tumors had better overall and disease‐specific survivals with ≥ 2 mm margins. Subsites of the tongue, palate, mandible, and floor of the mouth had improved local control with ≥ 2 mm margins. Conclusion Margins beyond 4 mm do not confer additional oncological benefit, while achieving ≥ 2 mm, especially in deep margins or high‐risk tumors, is critical for optimal outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: