Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Surgical Oncology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/suronc
Review
Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery and Cleft & Craniofacial Surgery, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, India
Department of Surgical Oncology, Institute of Medical Sciences, BHU, Varanasi 221005, India
c
Department of Pathology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Accepted 21 June 2011
Surgery is one of the established modes of initial denitive treatment for a majority of oral cancers.
Invasion of bony or cartilaginous structures by advanced upper aero-digestive tract cancer has been
considered an indication for primary surgery on the basis of historic experience of poor responsiveness
to radiation therapy [1]. The mandible is a key structure both in the pathology of intra-oral tumours and
their surgical management. It bars easy surgical access to the oral cavity, yet maintaining its integrity is
vital for function and cosmesis. Management of tumours that involve or abut the mandible requires
specic understanding of the pattern of spread and routes of tumour invasion into the mandible. This
facilitates the employment of mandibular sparing approaches like marginal mandibulectomy and
mandibulotomy, as opposed to segmental or hemimandibulectomy which causes severe functional
problems, as the mandibular continuity is lost. Accurate preoperative assessment that combines clinical
examination and imaging along with the understanding of the pattern of spread and routes of invasion is
essential in deciding the appropriate level and extent of mandibular resection in oral squamous cell
carcinoma. Studies have shown that local control rates achieved with marginal mandibulectomy are
comparable with that of segmental mandibulectomy. In carefully selected patients, marginal mandibulectomy is an oncologically safe procedure to achieve good local control and provides a better quality
of life. This article aims to review the mechanism of spread, evaluation and prognosis of mandibular
invasion, various techniques and role of mandibular conservation in oral squamous cell carcinoma.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Mandibular conservation
Mandibular preservation
Mandibular invasion
Marginal mandibulectomy
Segmental mandibulectomy
Oral squamous cell carcinoma
Oral carcinoma
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mechanism of mandibular invasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prediction of mandibular invasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clinical evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Radiological evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Intraoperative evaluation of mandibular invasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Histopathological examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Segmental vs. marginal mandibulectomy/mandibular preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prognosis in cases with mandibular invasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conflict of interest statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Uncited references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Authorship statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Please cite this article in press as: Rao LP, et al., Mandibular conservation in oral cancer, Surgical Oncology (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.suronc.2011.06.003
Introduction
In the past it was standard practice to resect mandible as part of
the excision of many intra-oral cancers. Initially it was thought
necessary for adequate tumour clearance [2e4]. One of the pioneers
to study the involvement of mandible in oral cancers was Panagopoulos (1959), he found mandibular involvement in 12/48 cases
and proposed that the bone involvement in oro maxillary tumours
occur by extension of the neoplasm through nutrient channels [5].
His observations were based on demonstration of tumour cells in
Volkmans canal in few cases. Later on, despite the histological proof
that many of the mandibles sacriced were uninvolved [6,7],
segmental or hemimandibulectomy remained the mainstay of
surgical treatment for oral cancers adjacent to mandible because it
provided excellent exposure and easy closure of the surgical defect.
The functional and cosmetic consequences associated are devastating
to the patients due to impairment of occlusion, mandibular deviation,
overall decreased range of motion, temporomandibular joint pain,
poor contour of the symphysis and diet restricted to soft foods. The
mandible is critical with respect to dentition and mastication, speech,
and swallowing and maintaining a patent airway. With improvement
and advances in the imaging as well as reconstruction techniques the
balance has swung in favor of mandible-sparing surgeries, where the
results are cosmetically and functionally superior.
Clinical evaluation and preoperative radiological studies have
been used to evaluate bony invasion and to decide on the extent of
mandibulectomy. Understanding of the mechanism of invasion and
spread within the bone, and changes associated with loss of teeth
is crucial in the successful management of the tumours in close
proximity to mandible.
This literature review was carried out to assess the role of
mandibular preservation in case of carcinomas in close proximity to
the mandible and the correlation between clinical and radiological
ndings in such carcinomas.
Materials and methods
A detailed Pubmed (Medline) search was made using key words
mandibular involvement, or mandibular invasion, or mandibular
preservation, or mandibular conservation, or segmental mandibulectomy, or marginal mandibulectomy and oral cancer, or
oral squamous cell carcinoma, or carcinoma of the oral cavity. The
literature review was carried out till June 2011. The following string
was used for literature search:((mandible OR mandibular) AND
involvement) AND ((cancer OR carcinoma OR neoplasm OR tumor
OR tumour) AND (oral OR head OR neck))
Results
The search revealed 330 articles. Abstracts of all articles were
reviewed to identify the relevant studies, by this process, 76 full
articles of studies thus identied were then obtained and back
references were checked. Of these 92 articles, only 6 were listed as
clinical trials, no randomized controlled trials were identied
(chart 1). The inclusion criteria was the study should be on oral
squamous carcinoma, should be dealing with either identication
of mandibular invasion preoperatively or dealing with mandibular
preservation and their results in humans. The articles which were
not directly dealing with mandibular involvement or conservation
or preservation in oral squamous cell carcinoma, were excluded
from the review. The articles on mandibular excision for tumours
other then oral cancer, benign diseases and non-human studies too
were excluded.
Mechanism of mandibular invasion
Carcinoma of the mandibular region is dened as carcinoma
arising from the mandibular alveolar ridge, lower buccal sulcus,
sublingual sulcus or mandibular retromolar trigone [8]. It had long
been assumed that oral squamous cell carcinoma had the potential
to spread via the lymphatics within the mandibular lingual periosteum [9]. Composite resection of oral cancer with en bloc
resection of a segment or hemi mandible with neck node dissection was the main stay of treatment for oral squamous cell carcinoma to allow complete extirpation of tumour [2,10,11]. It was also
felt that involvement of the inferior dental canal or perineural
spread adversely inuenced the possibility of a limited surgical
approach [12,13].
Please cite this article in press as: Rao LP, et al., Mandibular conservation in oral cancer, Surgical Oncology (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.suronc.2011.06.003
Clinical evaluation
A detailed clinical examination is important in evaluating the
tumour invasion (Fig. 1). Clinical assessment of mandibular invasion
is performed by bimanually assessing the mobility of the tumour
mass in relation to the mandible or xity of the tumour to mandible.
Inspection and palpation of the tumour and adjacent structures
usually pick up additional signs of mandibular invasion namely,
cortical thickening, symptoms of inferior alveolar nerve paraesthesia, and bony irregularities and pathological fractures if any
[29,30]. According to reported literature, clinical evaluation carries
a sensitivity ranging from 32%e96% [6,13,20,25,27,29,31e34].
Several studies had shown preoperative clinical assessment as
the primary method for determining mandibular invasion [29,35].
But the clinical assessment of large oral cancers especially in the
presence of trismus due to submucous brosis related to tobacco
and betel nut chewing [36,37] or due to pterygoid or masseter
muscle involvement that precludes bimanual palpation of the
mandible, can sometimes be inaccurate and therefore unreliable.
Similarly it is not possible to detect subtle cortical invasion with
clinical examination alone [38,39]. A careful clinical and radiological
correlation is required to achieve the ultimate goal of not sacricing
any more bone than needed to remove the entire tumour.
Radiological evaluation
Controversy still exists about the best way to image the mandible
in the management of oral cancer when there is a chance that
a resection of the mandible will be required as part of the treatment.
The literature review showed that there is no single investigation
that can predict whether tumour has invaded the mandible with
100% reliability (Table 1).
Radiologically, plain lms, orthopantomograms (OPG), computed
tomography (CT) scans, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone
scans have been used with varying degrees of accuracy [40].
Panorex radiographs play an important role in the detection of
bone invasion by oral carcinoma especially in determining the
superioreinferior extent of the tumour in the bone, which is one of
the most important factors inuencing the selection between rim
and segmental resection of the mandible (Fig. 2) [29,32,41e44].
They also represent the mandible in a way that is easy to extrapolate to the clinical situation and is therefore useful for planning the
surgical procedure [45]. Nakayama et al., (1999) advocated the use
of panoramic radiography combined with intra-oral radiography as
the initial imaging modality to determine the extent of superoinferior invasion of the mandible in gingival carcinoma [43].
According to Hong et al. (2001) when deciding the required
anterioreposterior limits of resection, among the different kinds of
imaging modalities, intra-oral periapical lms with the paralleling
technique seem to provide the most valuable information, due to
their ne anatomical detail [46]. But the panorex and intraoral
radiographs carry the disadvantage of not detecting early invasion
of mandible with less than 30% of mineral loss [47,48]. The interforaminal area is difcult to assess by panorex radiographs due to
the superimposition of cervical vertebrae.
CT scan has become standard technique for staging malignant
tumours of the head and neck region. It is a sensitive method of
assessing squamous cell carcinoma of mandibular region in terms of
its size, location, spread in the bone as well as soft tissue & regional
lymph node involvement [27,34,49,50]. With axial & coronal CT scans
even subtle tumour invasions of angle and ramus of the mandible can
be detected (Fig. 3). Because of the partial volume effect in the curved
bony surfaces as in anterior mandible and alveolar processes, and
metal artifacts, the specicity of CT scan remains low [51]. But with
latest 128 slice CT scans, the 3D reconstruction and planning of the
Please cite this article in press as: Rao LP, et al., Mandibular conservation in oral cancer, Surgical Oncology (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.suronc.2011.06.003
Fig. 1. Clinical photograph showing the lesions, A) Supercial lesion of the buccal mucosa extending to retromolar trigone, B) Small lesion in the gingivobuccal sulcus, C) Ulceroinlterative lesion in the gingivobuccal sulcus extending on to the alveolus, D) Extensive lesion on the gingivo buccal sulcus with involvement of alveolus and mandible.
surgical margins have become more accurate (Fig. 3). The cone-beam
CT and dentascan have shown promising results in identication of
mandibular invasion by oral carcinoma [52e57].
MRI scan is superior to CT scans as it detects early soft tissue and
medullary involvement and not as effected by metal artifacts
[58,59]. However it is less reliable in evaluation of cortical bone
involvement because of lack of signal from cortex secondary to its
low number of mobile hydrogen ions [60,61]. Imaizumi et al.(2006)
reported on low specicity of MRI scan to detect mandibular
cortical invasion and inferior alveolar canal involvement [62]. The
large number of false positive results obtained with MR imaging in
contrast to CT scan seemed to be attributed to chemical shift artifacts induced by bone marrow fat. Namely, it was considered that
the black line of the cortex adjacent to the tumour mass was
obscured by spatial misplacement of fat, or severe periodontal
disease or secondary changes from tooth extraction. MR imaging
often showed the tumour and the surrounding inammation in the
bone marrow with similar signal intensity, resulting in overestimation of the tumour extent.
Bone scintigraphy is generally considered as the most reliable
method of detecting bone invasion & distant metastases (Fig. 4).
Increased bone turnover in squamous cell carcinoma gives rise to
hot spots on bone scan thus detecting even periosteal involvement. But as the osteoblast activity can be high in osteomyelitis,
children, fractures, or even periodontal diseases, the specicity of
bone scintigraphy is rather low. Several studies have reported on
high sensitivity & low specicity of bone scans [17,25,27,32,63].
Schimming et al.(2000) reported 100% sensitivity and 91.6% specicity for computer-aided 3-D 99mTc-DPD-SPECT(TechnetiumDicarboxy propan-single photon emission CT) and conventional
99m Tc-DPD-SPECT in their comparison of these imaging modalities with clinical examination, panoramic radiography, and CT scan
in the assessment of mandibular bone invasion by squamous cell
carcinoma in 50 cases [64].
The various studies comparing the effectiveness of various
investigative modalities in detecting mandibular invasion in oral
squamous cell carcinoma have failed to demonstrate 100% accuracy
with any one technique [34,50,65,66]. Results of these studies show
superior results when the data from different imaging techniques is
correlated with the clinical ndings [67].
Brown and Lewis eJones (2001) in their review of different
investigative modalities commented that the decision to resect the
mandible as part of the management of oral cancer should be taken
on the evidence of clinical examination, intra-operative periosteal
Please cite this article in press as: Rao LP, et al., Mandibular conservation in oral cancer, Surgical Oncology (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.suronc.2011.06.003
Table 1
showing sensitivity and specicity of various radiological techniques in detecting bony invasion in various series.
OPG
CT
Sensitivity (%)
Specicity (%)
78
57
88
92
69.6
92
97
80
64
66.7
88
70
72
97
85
86.6
89.5
80
76
91
71
93
66
64
Sensitivity (%)
MRI
Specicity (%)
Sensitivity (%)
Scintigraphy
Specicity (%)
100
91.3
88
96.3
96
39.1
54
96.3
100
89
91
64
39
94
96
73
53
97
57
96.3
89
93.8
92.5
53
90
93
100
93
92
80
50
78
61
94
86
80
88
100
Sensitivity (%)
Specicity (%)
89
79
100
66.7
100 SPECT
100
94
100 SPECT
29
67
73
91.6
95
72
71
100
71
88
98
47
50
Histopathological examination
Both macroscopically and histologically, distinct patterns of
mandibular bone invasion by the carcinoma have been identied
Please cite this article in press as: Rao LP, et al., Mandibular conservation in oral cancer, Surgical Oncology (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.suronc.2011.06.003
Fig. 3. Computerized tomography scan showing A) tumour of the buccal mucosa and gingivobuccal sulcus abutting the mandible with possible early erosion of outer cortex.
B) Tumour of the upper alveolus with extension in retromolar trigone and involvement of mandibular ramus. C) tumour of the tongue and lateral oor of mouth with extension to
the alveolus and destruction of mandibular bone. D) 3-D reconstruction showing the destruction of outer cortex of mandible. E) 3-D reconstruction of the same patient
demonstrating the destruction of inner cortex.
[13,77] (Fig. 5). The tumour can advance in the bone either as
a broad front, referred to as arrosion or in a diffusely inltrating
pattern [13]. In the arrosive pattern, the tumourebone interface is
well demarcated one with a continuous layer of new bone and
connective tissue. The second tumour pattern, inltrative, is
a diffuse one with extensive, irregular destruction of bone and
spread into cancellous bone. The inltrative pattern is marked by
nests and cords of tumour cells along an irregular tumour front, and
the erosive pattern exhibits a broad, pushing tumour front [5,37].
Wong et al. (2000) reported a signicantly worse prognosis for
inltrative pattern of mandibular invasion when compared with
the arrosive pattern [78]. The inltrative pattern clearly exhibited
Fig. 4. Bone scintigraphic scan showing two areas of increased isotope uptake in right
mandible and at the arch.
Please cite this article in press as: Rao LP, et al., Mandibular conservation in oral cancer, Surgical Oncology (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.suronc.2011.06.003
Fig. 5. Photomicrograph showing A) Tumour invasion in mandible in a broad front (E) characteristic of erosive pattern with no bony remnants within the tumour mass, tumour cells
are separated from the normal bone by a well demarcated brous zone (F). B) Tumour invasion in the mandible as irregular cords and islands (I) characteristic of inltrative pattern,
partially lysed bone spicules (B) are present within the tumour mass with no clear cut demarcating tissue between tumour and bone. C) Tumour invasion (T) into the perineural space
of the inferior alveolar nerve bundles. D) Tumour invasion (T) into the mandible involving the superior portion of the inferior alveolar canal with no invasion of nerve bundles (N). E)
Diffuse irregular tumour inltrating bone, brous marrow (FM) and bony remnants (B). F): Fatty marrow in post radiotherapy patient. (reproduced with permission from Pandey M
et al. Patterns of mandibular invasion in oral squamous cell carcinoma of the mandibular region. World Journal of Surgical Oncology 2007, 5:12 doi:10.1186/1477-7819-5-12).
Please cite this article in press as: Rao LP, et al., Mandibular conservation in oral cancer, Surgical Oncology (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.suronc.2011.06.003
Please cite this article in press as: Rao LP, et al., Mandibular conservation in oral cancer, Surgical Oncology (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.suronc.2011.06.003
[20] Tsue TT, McCulloth MT, Girod DA, Couper JD, Weymuller AE, Glenn M.
Predictors of carcinomatous invasion of the mandible. Head Neck 1994;16:
116e26.
[21] McGregor AD, MacDonald DG. Patterns of spread of squamous cell carcinoma
to the ramus of the mandible. Head Neck 1993;15:440e4.
[22] Yanagisawa K, Friedman C, Vining EM, Abrahams JJ. Dentascan Imaging of the
mandible and maxilla. Head Neck 1993;15:1e7.
[23] Carter RL, Tanner NSB, Clifford P, Shaw HJ. Direct bone invasion in squamous
carcinomas of the head and neck: pathological and clinical implications. Clin
Otolaryngol 1980;5:107.
[24] Kalavrezos ND, Grtz KW, Sailer HF, Stahel WA. Correlation of imaging and
clinical features in the assessment of mandibular invasion of oral carcinomas.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;25(6):439e45.
[25] Weisman RA, Kimmelman CXP. Bone scanning in the assessment of mandibular invasion by oral cavity carcinomas. Laryngoscope 1982;92:1e4.
[26] Gilbert S, Tzadik A, Leonard G, Farmington CT. Mandibular involvement by oral
squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope 1986;96:96e101.
[27] Bahadur S. Mandibular involvement in oral cancer. J Laryngol Otol 1990;104:
968e71.
[28] Smyth DA, ODwyer TP, Keane CO, Stack J. Predicting mandibular invasion in
mouth cancer. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1996;21(3):265e8.
[29] Rao LP, Das SR, Mathews A, Naik BR, Chacko E, Pandey M. Mandibular invasion
in oral squamous cell carcinoma: investigation by clinical examination and
orthopantomogram. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;33:454e7.
[30] Pandey M, Rao LP, Das SR. Predictors of mandibular involvement in cancers of
the oromandibular region. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:1069e73.
[31] OBrien CJ, Carter R, Soo KC, Barr LC, Hamlyn PJ, Shaw HJ. Invasion of the
mandible by squamous carcinomas of the oral cavity and oropharynx. Head
Neck Surg 1986;8:247e56.
[32] Shaha AR. Preoperative evaluation of the mandible in patients with carcinoma
of the oor of the mouth. Head Neck 1991;13:398e402.
[33] Zupi A, Califano L, Maremonti P, Longo F, Ciccarelli R, Soricelli I. Accuracy in
the diagnosis of mandibular involvement by oral cancer. J CranioMaxillofac
Surg 1996;24:281e4.
[34] Ord RA, Sarmadi M, Papadimitrou JA. Comparison of segmental and marginal
bony resection for oral squamous cell carcinoma involving mandible. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 1997;55:470e7.
[35] Werning JW, Byers RM, Novas MA, Roberts D. Preoperative assessment for and
outcomes of mandibular conservation surgery. Head Neck 2001;23:1024e30.
[36] Mehta AR, Bokil KP, Chandavarkar RY. Precancerous lesions in the oral cavity.
In: Rao RS, Desai PB, editors. Oral cancer. Professional education division, Tata
Memorial Hospital. Mumbai: Tata Memorial Cancer Centre; 1991. p. 24e42.
[37] Pradhan SA. Gingivo-buccal cancer: the Indian oral cancer. In: Rao RS,
Desai PB, editors. Oral cancer. Professional education division, Tata Memorial
Hospital. Mumbai: Tata Memorial Cancer Centre; 1991. p. 63e76.
[38] Lukinmaa PL, Hietanen J, Soderholm AL, Lindqvist C. The histologic pattern of
bone invasion by squamous cell carcinoma of the mandibular region. Br J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 1992;30:2e7.
[39] Curran AJ, Toner M, Quinn A, Wilson G, Timon C. Mandibular invasion diagnosed by SPECT. Clin Otolaryngol 1996;21:542e5.
[40] Beecroft WA, Sako K, Razack MS, Shedd DP. Mandible preservation in the
treatment of the oor of the mouth. J Surg Oncol 1982;19:171e5.
[41] Kusama M, Kishi T, Hoshi K. Clinical study on method of resection for carcinoma of lower gingivadthe border of marginal resection and segmental
resection of the mandible. Head Neck Cancer 1997;23:631e6.
[42] Muller H, Slootweg PJ. Mandibular invasion by oral squamous cell carcinoma:
clinical aspects. J Cranio Maxillofac Surg 1990;18:80e4.
[43] Nakayama E, Yoshiura K, Yuasa K, Tabataa O, Araki K, Kanda S, et al. Detection
of bone invasion by gingival carcinoma of the mandible: a comparison of
intra-oral and panoramic radiography and computed tomography. Dento
Maxillofac Radiol 1999;28:351e6.
[44] Totsuka Y, Usui Y, Tei K, Kida M, Mizukoshi T, Notani K, et al. Results of surgical
treatment for squamous carcinoma of the lower alveolus: segmental vs.
marginal resection. Head Neck 1991;13:114e20.
[45] Politi M, Costa F, Robiony M, Rinaldo A, Ferlito A. Review of segmental and
marginal resection of the mandible in patients with oral cancer. Acta Otolaryngol 2000;120:569e79.
[46] Hong SX, Cha IH, Lee EW, Kim J. Mandibular invasion of lower gingival
carcinoma in the molar region: its clinical implications on the surgical
management. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001 Apr;30(2):130e8.
[47] Alexander JM. Radionuclide bone scanning in the diagnosi of lesions of the
maxillofacial region. J Oral Surg 1976;34:249e56.
[48] Aitasalo K, Neva M. Morphometry of orthopantomographic mandibular bone
changes during radiation therapy. Acta Radiol Diagn 1985;26:551e6.
[49] Close GL, Burns KD, Merkel M, Schaefer DS. Computed tomography in the
assessment of mandibular invasion by intraoralcarcinoma. Ann Otol Rhinol
Laryngol 1986;95:383e8.
[50] Acton CH, Layt C, Gwynne R, Cooke R, Seaton D. Investigative modalities of mandibulaqr invasion by squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2000;110:2050e5.
[51] Imola MJ, Gapany M, Grund F, Djalilian H, Fehling S, Aadms G. Technetium
99m single positron emission computed tomography scanning for assessing
mandible invasion in oral cavity cancer. Laryngoscope 2001;111:372e81.
[52] Mukherji SK, Isaacs DL, Creager A, Shockley W, Weissler M, Armao D. CT
detection of mandibular invasion by squamous cell carcinoma of the oral
cavity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001 Jul;177(1):237e43.
Please cite this article in press as: Rao LP, et al., Mandibular conservation in oral cancer, Surgical Oncology (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.suronc.2011.06.003
10
[78] Wong RJ, Keel SB, Glynn RJ, Varvares MA. Histological pattern of mandibular
invasion by oral squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2000 Jan;110(1):
65e72.
[79] Collins SL, Saunders VW. Excision of selected intraoral cancers by the use of
sagittal inner table mandibulectomy. OtolaryngoleHead Neck Surg 1987;97:
558e66.
[80] Shaha AR, Spiro RH, Shah JP, Strong EW. Squamous carcinoma of the oor of
the mouth. Am J Surg 1984;148:455e9.
[81] Lam KH, Lam LK, Ho CM, Wei WI. Mandibular invasion in carcinoma of the
lower alveolus. Am J Otolaryngol 1999 Sep-Oct;20(5):267e72.
[82] Ishikuro M, Sakamoto K, Kayamori K, Akashi T, Kanda H, Izumo T, et al.
Signicance of the brous stroma in bone invasion by human gingival squamous cell carcinomas. Bone 2008 Sep;43(3):621e7.
[83] Dierks EJ, Karakourtis MH. Segmental resection of the anterior mandibular
arch with bular microvascular reconstruction. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin
North Am 1997;5(2):55e73.
[84] Petruzzelli GJ, Brockenbrough JM, Vandevender D, Creech SD. The inuence of
reconstructive modality on cost of care\ in head and neck oncologic surgery.
Arch Otolaryngole Head Neck Surg 2002;128:1377e80.
[85] Crile GW. Carcinoma of the jaws, tongue, cheek, and lips. Surg Gyn Obs 1923;
36:159e62.
[86] DeLacure M. Special considerations in management of the mandible for cancer
of the oral cavity. Curr Opinion OtolaryngoleHead Neck Surg 1996;4:98e105.
[87] Martin H. Cancer of the guns (gingivae). Am J Surg 1941;54:769e806.
[88] Byers RM, Anderson B, Schwartz EA, Fields Rs, Meoz R. Treatment of squamous
cell carcinoma of the retromolar trigone. Am JClin Oncol 1984;7:647e52.
[89] Wald RM, Calcaterra TC. Lower alveolar carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol 1983;
109:578.
[90] Barttelbort SW, Bahn SL, Ariyan SA. Rim mandibulectomy for the cancer of the
oral cavity. Am J Surg 1987;154:423e8.
[91] Randall CJ, Eyre J, Davies D, Walsh-Waring GP. Marginal mandibulectomy for
malignant disease:indication, rationale and results. J Laryngol Otol 1987;101:
676e84.
[92] Shaha R. Marginal mandibulectomy for carcinoma of the oor of the mouth.
J Surg Oncol 1992;49:116e9.
[93] Barttelbort SW, Ariyan S. Mandible preservation with oral cavity carcinoma:
rim mandibulectomy with sagittal mandibulectomy. Am J Surg 1993;166:411.
[94] Pinsolle V, Truilhe Y, Majoufre C, Michelet V, Pinsolle J. Posterior marginal
mandibulectomy for cancers of the oral cavity and oropharynx: experience
with 14 clinical cases. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 1997;42:223e7.
[95] Petruzzelli GJ, Knight FK, Vandevender D, Clark JI, Emami B. Posterior marginal
mandibulectomy in the management of cancer of the oral cavity and
oropharynx. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:713e9.
[96] Guerra MFM, Gas LN, Campo FR, Perez JS. Marginal and segmental mandibulectomy in patients with oral cancer: a statistical analysis of 106 cases.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:1289e96.
[97] Tei K, Totsuka Y, Iizuka T, Ohmori K. Marginal resection for carcinoma of the
mandibular alveolus and gingiva where radiologically detected bone defects
do not extend beyond the mandibular canal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:
834e9.
[98] Brown J, Chatterjee R, Lowe D, Lewis-Jones H, Rogers S, Vaughan D. A new
guide to mandibular resection for oral squamous cell carcinoma based on the
Cawood and Howell classication of the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2005;34:834e9.
[99] Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classication of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 1988;17:232e6.
[100] Cawood JI, Howell RA. Reconstructive preprosthetic surgery. I. Anatomical
considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991;20:75e82.
[101] Ogura I, Kurabayashi T, Amagasa T, Okada N, Sasaki T. Mandibular bone
invasion by gingival carcinoma on dental CT images as an indicator of cervical
lymph node metastasis. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002;31(6):339e43.
[102] Tankr F, Golmard JL, Barry B, Guedon C, Depondt J, Gehanno P. Prognostic
value of mandibular involvement in oral cavity cancers. Rev Laryngol Otol
Rhinol (Bord) 2002;123(1):7e12.
[103] OBrien CJ, Adams JR, McNeil EB, Taylor P, Laniewski P, Clifford A, et al.
Inuence of bone invasion and extent of mandibular resection on local
control of cancers of the oral cavity and oropharynx. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2003;32:492e7.
[104] Shaw RJ, Brown JS, Woolgar JA, Lowe D, Rogers SN, Vaughan ED. The inuence of the pattern of mandibular invasion on recurrence and survival in oral
squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2004;26(10):861e9.
[105] Patel RS, Dirven R, Clark JR, Swinson BD, Gao K, OBrien CJ. The prognostic
impact of extent of bone invasion and extent of bone resection in oral
carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2008;118(5):780e5.
[106] Pandey M, Rao LP, Das SR, Shukla M. Tumor stage and resection margins not
the mandibular invasion determines the survival in patients with cancers of
oro-mandibular region. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35:1337e42.
[107] De Vicente JC, Recio OR, Pendas SL, Lopez-Arranz JS. Oral squamous cell
carcinoma of the mandibular region: a survival study. Head Neck 2001;23:
536.
[108] Leipzig B. Assessment of mandibular invasion by carcinoma. Cancer 1985;56:1201.
Please cite this article in press as: Rao LP, et al., Mandibular conservation in oral cancer, Surgical Oncology (2011), doi:10.1016/
j.suronc.2011.06.003