Surgical margins of the oral cavity: Is 5 mm really necessary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common malignancy of the oral cavity. Primary treatment involves surgical resection of the tumour with a surrounding margin. Historically, the most commonly accepted margin clearance is 5 mm. This distance is controversial, with recent publications suggesting closer margins do not impact local recurrence and survival. The objective of this study is to determine the closest surgical margin that does not impact local recurrence and overall survival. METHODS: A retrospective review of the London Health Sciences Centre Head and Neck Multidisciplinary Clinic between 2010 and 2018 was performed. Demographic data, subsite, tumour staging, treatment modality, margins, and survival outcomes were analyzed. The primary endpoint was local recurrence free survival. Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Descriptive statistics, as well as univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression modelling were performed for all patients. RESULTS: Four-hundred and twelve patients were included in the study, with a median follow-up of 3.3 years. On univariable analysis, positive margins and margins < 1 mm were associated with significantly worse local recurrence-free survival, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival (p < 0.05), compared to margins > 5 mm. Patients with surgical margins > 1 mm experienced similar outcomes to those with margins > 5 mm. Multivariable analysis identified age of diagnosis, alcohol consumption, pathological tumour and nodal category as predictors of local recurrence free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although historical margins for head and neck surgery are 5 mm, similar outcomes were observed for margins greater than 1 mm in our cohort. These findings require validation through multi-institutional collaborative efforts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".