Treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas: A survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands

Abstract Objective Currently, there is no up‐to‐date guideline for the treatment of buccal mucosal squamous cell carcinoma (BMSCC) in the Netherlands. A questionnaire was used to investigate the opinions of Dutch head and neck surgeons on BMSCC of the cheek treatment. Methods A questionnaire was sent to all 91 head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands. Their opinions on surgical tumor‐free margins, through‐and‐through defects, and indications for local adjuvant therapy were questioned. Results The response rate was 51%. To prevent a through‐and‐through defect, 67% of the surgeons would accept... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Carleen M. E. M. Adriaansens
Rob Noorlag
Remco deBree
Robert J. J. vanEs
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2023
Reihe/Periodikum: Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, Vol 8, Iss 4, Pp 857-864 (2023)
Verlag/Hrsg.: Wiley
Schlagwörter: buccal mucosal squamous cell carcinoma / head and neck surgeon / questionnaire / through‐and‐through defect / ultrasound / Otorhinolaryngology / RF1-547 / Surgery / RD1-811
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-26804453
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1081

Abstract Objective Currently, there is no up‐to‐date guideline for the treatment of buccal mucosal squamous cell carcinoma (BMSCC) in the Netherlands. A questionnaire was used to investigate the opinions of Dutch head and neck surgeons on BMSCC of the cheek treatment. Methods A questionnaire was sent to all 91 head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands. Their opinions on surgical tumor‐free margins, through‐and‐through defects, and indications for local adjuvant therapy were questioned. Results The response rate was 51%. To prevent a through‐and‐through defect, 67% of the surgeons would accept a deep clinical (macroscopic) margin of ≤5 mm. The less adverse histological characteristics a tumor has, the less consensus there is amongst the surgeons for local adjuvant treatment in case of close margins. Conclusion There is no consensus amongst Dutch head and neck surgeons about the optimal treatment for BMSCC of the cheek. There are different opinions on acceptable resection margins, indications for a through‐and‐through defect, and indications for adjuvant treatment. BMSCC of the cheek treatment should be more uniform and less surgeon dependent. Level of evidence N/A