An international comparison of the management of the neck in early oral squamous cell carcinoma in the Netherlands, UK, and USA. Issue 1 (January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Govers, Tim M.; de Kort, Tijs B.H.; Merkx, Matthias A.W.; Steens, Stefan C.A.; Rovers, Maroeska M.; de Bree, Remco; Takes, Robert P.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Volume 44:Issue 1(2016)
• Page Start: 62
• Page End: 69
• Publication Date: 2016-01
• Subjects: Evidence-based management -- Practice variation -- International comparison -- Neck management -- Oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- surgery -- Periodicals; Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.514
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.023
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-5182

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Early oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) management appears to vary both within and between countries. Variation in practice can be an indicator of absence of evidence-based management and may negatively influence survival and morbidity. The exact variation and the relationship to differences in guidelines are unknown. This study aimed to report on these variations in the Netherlands, UK, and USA, and to evaluate them. Methods: Information regarding the variation in OCSCC management strategies was obtained from a questionnaire sent to representatives of head and neck cancer centers in the Netherlands, UK, and USA. Within-country and between-country variations were also assessed in light of the different guidelines. Results: In total, representatives of 45 centers completed the questionnaire; 10 from the Netherlands, 26 from the UK and 9 from the USA. Our results demonstrate a distinct variation in the diagnoses, treatment and follow-up of OCSCC, both within and between countries. Only a small amount of variation between countries could be linked to differences in guidelines. Conclusions: There is high variation in the management of the neck in OCSCC. There seem to be a need for direct evidence about optimal management decisions to establish more evidence-based management and uniform practice.