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 sen...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Carleen M. E. M. Adriaansens, Rob Noorlag, Remco deBree, Robert J. J. vanEs
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023-08-01
Series:Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1081
_version_ 1797738288891559936
author Carleen M. E. M. Adriaansens
Rob Noorlag
Remco deBree
Robert J. J. vanEs
author_facet Carleen M. E. M. Adriaansens
Rob Noorlag
Remco deBree
Robert J. J. vanEs
author_sort Carleen M. E. M. Adriaansens
collection DOAJ
description 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
first_indexed 2024-03-12T13:41:41Z
format Article
id doaj.art-ea7ad2895dd64c618e5260cebe3e8b75
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2378-8038
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T13:41:41Z
publishDate 2023-08-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
spelling doaj.art-ea7ad2895dd64c618e5260cebe3e8b752023-08-23T18:20:17ZengWileyLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology2378-80382023-08-018485786410.1002/lio2.1081Treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas: A survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the NetherlandsCarleen M. E. M. Adriaansens0Rob Noorlag1Remco deBree2Robert J. J. vanEs3Department of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht the NetherlandsDepartment of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht the NetherlandsDepartment of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht the NetherlandsDepartment of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht the NetherlandsAbstract 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/Ahttps://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1081buccal mucosal squamous cell carcinomahead and neck surgeonquestionnairethrough‐and‐through defectultrasound
spellingShingle Carleen M. E. M. Adriaansens
Rob Noorlag
Remco deBree
Robert J. J. vanEs
Treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas: A survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands
Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
buccal mucosal squamous cell carcinoma
head and neck surgeon
questionnaire
through‐and‐through defect
ultrasound
title Treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas: A survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands
title_full Treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas: A survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands
title_fullStr Treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas: A survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands
title_full_unstemmed Treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas: A survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands
title_short Treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas: A survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the Netherlands
title_sort treatment of buccal mucosal carcinomas a survey amongst head and neck surgeons in the netherlands
topic buccal mucosal squamous cell carcinoma
head and neck surgeon
questionnaire
through‐and‐through defect
ultrasound
url https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1081
work_keys_str_mv AT carleenmemadriaansens treatmentofbuccalmucosalcarcinomasasurveyamongstheadandnecksurgeonsinthenetherlands
AT robnoorlag treatmentofbuccalmucosalcarcinomasasurveyamongstheadandnecksurgeonsinthenetherlands
AT remcodebree treatmentofbuccalmucosalcarcinomasasurveyamongstheadandnecksurgeonsinthenetherlands
AT robertjjvanes treatmentofbuccalmucosalcarcinomasasurveyamongstheadandnecksurgeonsinthenetherlands