Article Data

  • Views 220
  • Dowloads 137

Original Research

Open Access

Vulval cancer: what is an adequate surgical margin?

  • J. Balega1,*,
  • J. Butler2
  • A. Jeyarajah1
  • D. Oram1
  • J. Shepherd1
  • A. Faruqi3
  • N. Singh3
  • K. Reynolds1

1Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, 7th Floor Gloucester House, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, UK

2Department of Surgical Gynaecologic Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, SW3 6JJ, UK

3Department of Histopathology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, UK

DOI: 10.12892/ejgo200805455 Vol.29,Issue 5,September 2008 pp.455-458

Published: 10 September 2008

*Corresponding Author(s): J. Balega E-mail: janosbalega@yahoo.co.uk

Abstract

Objective: To determine the accuracy of naked eye assessment of surgical margins after formalin fixation in Vulval cancer in comparison with microscopic assessment. Design: Retrospective review. Setting: The Gynaecological Cancer Centre, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK. Population: Patients with primary vulval cancer who underwent surgery from 1997 to 2006. Methods: Histopathology reports were reviewed and data on surgical margins were analysed. After formalin fixation, pathologists analysed surgical margins and measured them with a ruler. This measurement was compared with microscopic measurement. Other clinicopathologic variables were also recorded and compared. Main outcome measure: Comparison between macroscopic and microscopic measurement, and the relation to clinicopathological variables. Results: Naked eye assessment of surgical margins was within 2 mm of correlated microscopic measurement in 29 patients (Group 1). In ten patients the macroscopic measurement of clear margins was less than the microscopic (Group 2). In the remaining 11 cases (22%) naked eye observation overestimated the normal skin margins (Group 3). Seven patients from this group eventually fell into the unfavourable prognostic category of surgical margins < 8 mm. The presence of LVSI was significantly more frequent in Group 3 than in the other two groups (p = 0.01). The difference between other variables of the Study groups was statistically non-significant. Conclusion: Our Study demonstrates that naked eye assessment of surgical margins after formalin fixation is inaccurate and that surgical margins are often inadequate. We conclude that tumours with LVSI should be considered for a wider surgical excision.

Keywords

Vulval cancer; Surgical margin; LVSI

Cite and Share

J. Balega,J. Butler,A. Jeyarajah,D. Oram,J. Shepherd,A. Faruqi,N. Singh,K. Reynolds. Vulval cancer: what is an adequate surgical margin?. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2008. 29(5);455-458.

References

[1] Cancer Research UK Cancer Statistics (www.cruk.org.uk).

[2] Judson P.L., Habermann E.B., Baxter N.N., Durham S.B., Virnig B.A.: “Trends in the incidence of invasive and in situ vulvar carcinoma”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2006, 107, 1018.

[3] Way S.: “Carcinoma of the vulva”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1960, 79, 692.

[4] DiSaia P.J., Creasman W.T., Rich W.M.: “An alternate approach to early cancer of the vulva”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1979, 133, 825.

[5] Hacker N.F., Leuchter R.S., Berek J.S., Castaldo T.W., Lagasse L.D.: “Radical vulvectomy and bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy through separate groin incisions”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1981, 58, 574.

[6] Berman M.L., Soper J.T., Creasman W.T., Olt G.T., DiSaia P.J.: “Conservative surgical management of superficially invasive stage I vulvar carcinoma”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1989, 35, 352.

[7] Burke T.W., Levenback C., Coleman R.L., Morris M., Silva E.G., Gershenson D.M.: “Surgical therapy of T1 and T2 vulvar carcinoma: further experience with radical wide excision and selective inguinal lymphadenectomy”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1995, 57, 215.

[8] De Hullu J.A., Hollema H., Lolkema S., Boezen M., Boonstra H., Burger M.P. et al.: “Vulvar carcinoma. The price of less radical surgery”. Cancer, 2002, 95, 2331.

[9] Land R., Herod J., Moskovic E., King M., Sohaib S.A., Trott P. et al.: “Routine computerized tomography scanning, groin ultrasound with or without fine needle aspiration cytology in the surgical management of primary squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2006, 16, 312.

[10] Coulter J., Gleeson N.: “Local and regional recurrence of vulval cancer: management dilemmas”. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol., 2003, 17, 663.

[11] Rouzier R., Haddad B., Plantier F., Dubois P., Pelisse M., Paniel B.J.: “Local relapse in patients treated for squamous cell vulvar carcinoma: incidence and prognostic value”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2002, 100, 1159.

[12] Heaps J.M., Fu Y.S., Montz F.J., Hacker N.F., Berek J.S.: “Surgical- pathologic variables predictive of local recurrence in squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1990, 38, 309.

[13] Chan J.K., Sugiyama V., Pham H., Gu M., Rutgers J., Osann K. et al.: “Margin distance and other clinico-pathologic prognostic factors in vulvar carcinoma: a multivariate analysis”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2007, 104, 636.

[14] Management of Vulval cancer Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Working Party Report 2006 (www.rcog.org.uk).

[15] Hacker N.F.: “Vulvar cancer”. In: J.S. Berek and N.F. Hacker (eds.). Practical Gynecologic Oncology, 4th edition, Philadelphia, Lippincott, 2005.

[16] Boonstra H., Oosterhuis J.W., Oosterhuis A.M., Fleuren G.J.: “Cervical tissue shrinkage by formaldehyde fixation, paraffin wax embedding, section cutting and mounting”. Virchows Arch. A Pathol. Anat. Histopathol., 1983, 402, 195.

[17] Hoffman M.S., Gunesakaran S., Arango H., DeCesare S., Fiorica J.V., Parsons M. et al.: “Lateral microscopic extension of squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1999, 73, 72.


Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top