↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Close and Positive Margins in Transoral Laser Microsurgery for Tis–T2 Glottic Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of Close and Positive Margins in Transoral Laser Microsurgery for Tis–T2 Glottic Cancer
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2017.00245
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ivana Fiz, Francesco Mazzola, Francesco Fiz, Filippo Marchi, Marta Filauro, Alberto Paderno, Giampiero Parrinello, Cesare Piazza, Giorgio Peretti

Abstract

Transoral laser microsurgery (TLM) represents one of the most effective treatment strategies for Tis-T2 glottic squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). The prognostic influence of close/positive margins is still debated, and the role of narrow band imaging (NBI) in their intraoperative definition is still to be validated on large cohort of patients. This study analyzed the influence of margin status on recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). We retrospectively studied 507 cases of pTis-T1b (Group A) and 127 cases of pT2 (Group B) glottic SCC. We identified the following margin status: negative (n = 232), close superficial (n = 79), close deep (CD) (n = 35), positive single superficial (n = 146), positive multiple superficial (n = 94), and positive deep (n = 48) and analyzed their impact on RFS and DSS. Close margins were defined by tumor-margin distance <1 mm. Pre-TLM margins were defined by white light in 323 patients, whereas NBI was employed in 311 patients. In Group A, DSS and RFS were reduced in positive multiple superficial and positive deep margins (DSS = 96.1 and 97%, both p < 0.05; RFS = 72%, p < 0.001 and 75.8%, p < 0.01). In Group B, DSS was reduced in positive multiple superficial margins (82.4%, p < 0.05). RFS was reduced in positive single superficial, positive multiple superficial, and positive deep margins (62.5, 41.2, and 53.3%, p < 0.01). In the entire population, RFS was reduced in CD margins (77.1%, p < 0.05). Use of NBI led to improvement in RFS and DSS. The study indicates that close and positive single superficial margins do not affect DSS. By contrast, all types of margin positivity predict the occurrence of relapses, albeit with different likelihood, depending on stage/margin type. CD margins should be considered as a single risk factor. Use of NBI granted better intraoperative margins definition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Other 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 October 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#15,925
of 22,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,426
of 335,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#70
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.