Development and validation of a cadaveric porcine Pseudotumor model for Oral Cancer biopsy and resection training.

Objective: The gold standard of oral cancer (OC) treatment is diagnostic confirmation by biopsy followed by surgical treatment. However, studies have shown that dentists have difficulty performing biopsies, dental students lack knowledge about OC, and surgeons do not always maintain a safe margin during tumor resection. To address this, biopsies and resections could be trained under realistic conditions outside the patient. The aim of this study was to develop and to validate a porcine pseudotumor model of the tongue.

Methods: An interdisciplinary team reflecting various specialties involved in the oncological treatment of head and neck oncology developed a porcine pseudotumor model of the tongue in which biopsies and resections can be practiced. The refined model was validated in a final trial of 10 participants who each resected four pseudotumors on a tongue, resulting in a total of 40 resected pseudotumors. The participants (7 residents and 3 specialists) had an experience in OC treatment ranging from 0.5 to 27 years. Resection margins (minimum and maximum) were assessed macroscopically and compared beside self-assessed margins and resection time between residents and specialists. Furthermore, the model was evaluated using Likert-type questions on haptic and radiological fidelity, its usefulness as a training model, as well as its imageability using CT and ultrasound.

Results: The model haptically resembles OC (3.0 ± 0.5; 4-point Likert scale), can be visualized with medical imaging and macroscopically evaluated immediately after resection providing feedback. Although, participants (3.2 ± 0.4) tended to agree that they had resected the pseudotumor with an ideal safety margin (10 mm), the mean minimum resection margin was insufficient at 4.2 ± 1.2 mm (mean ± SD), comparable to reported margins in literature. Simultaneously, a maximum resection margin of 18.4 ± 6.1 mm was measured, indicating partial over-resection. Although specialists were faster at resection (p < 0.001), this had no effect on margins (p = 0.114). Overall, the model was well received by the participants, and they could see it being implemented in training (3.7 ± 0.5).

Conclusion: The model, which is cost-effective, cryopreservable, and provides a risk-free training environment, is ideal for training in OC biopsy and resection and could be incorporated into dental, medical, or oncologic surgery curricula. Future studies should evaluate the long-term training effects using this model and its potential impact on improving patient outcomes.