A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Variance in 3D anatomic localization of surgical margins based on conventional margin labeling in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: In head and neck cancer (HNC), positive margins are strongly predictive of treatment failure. We sought to measure the accuracy of localization of margin sampling sites based on conventional anatomic labels using a digital 3D-model.

Methods: Preoperative CT scans for 9 patients with HNC treated operatively at our institution were imported into a multiplanar radiology software, which was used to render a digital 3D model of each tumor intended to represent the resection specimen. Surgical margin labels recorded during the operative case were collected from pathology records. Margin labels (N = 64) were presented to participating physicians.Participants were asked to mark the anatomic location of each surgical margin using the 3D-model and corresponding radiographic planes for reference.For each individual margin, the 3D coordinates of each participant's marker were used to calculate a mean localization point called the geometric centroid. Mean distance from individual markers to the centroid was compared between participantsand margin types.

Results: Amongst 7 surgeons, markers were placed a mean distance of 12.6 mm ([SD] = 7.5) from the centroid.Deep margins were marked with a greater mean distance than mucosal/skin margins (19.6 [24.8] mm vs. 15.3 [14.9] mm, p = 0.034). When asked to relocate a margin following re-resection, surgeons marked a point an average of 20.6 [12.4] mm from their first marker with a range of 3.9- 45.1 mm.

Conclusions: Retrospective localization of conventionally labeled margins is an imprecise process with variability across the care team. Future interventions targeting margin documentation and communication may improve sampling precision.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10947562PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2023.106360DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

margin
9
based conventional
8
head neck
8
surgical margin
8
margin labels
8
margins
5
variance anatomic
4
localization
4
anatomic localization
4
localization surgical
4

Similar Publications