View clinical trials related to Tongue Neoplasms.
Filter by:Complete removal of cancer encircled by a secure margin of healthy tissue is the aim of surgical oncology. A close or positive surgical margin reported by pathologist typically ends in adjuvant therapies (re-surgery and/or radiotherapy), which come with prognostic risks and financial cost. Therefore, ex-vivo imaging of removed cancer tissue may assist in margin evaluation. In this study, investigators aimed to investigate the correlation of 3D ultrasound to histopathology to assess tongue tumor margin status.
A prospective multicenter randomized non-inferiority clinical trial, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1.0 cm-safety margin surgery, compared with 1.5 cm safety margin surgery for cT1-2N0 oral tongue cancer Summary: A current standard primary treatment for oral tongue cancer is a curative surgical resection with/without adjuvant radiation treatments (or chemoradiation). In pathological analysis of surgical specimens, more than 5 mm of non-tumorous tissues from the tumor border is regarded as a safe negative resection margin, according to the NCCN guideline (the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Dec 10. 2020). To achieve this clear margin, surgeons are apt to use a 1.0 to 1.5 cm safety margin around the gross tumor during surgery, considering 30-50% tumor shrinkage in tissue fixation process. Many previous retrospective data have been reported to suggest the optimal or proper surgical extent for oral tongue cancer. Wider resection can lead to better local control, however, it sacrifices more normal tissue, resulting in the functional deficit of tongue (speech and swallowing), even with reconstruction. Unfortunately up to now, no prospective comparison of a different surgical safety margin for oral tongue cancer have been conducted to draw a more solid conclusion. Particularly in early stage oral tongue cancer (cT1-2N0), some study results have suggested that less than 5 mm resection margin in pathology specimens can be also safe and effective in terms of tumor control. To achieve a well-grounded result about the proper surgical safety margin in early stage (cT1-2N0) oral tongue cancer, we will compare the outcomes of the two (1.5 cm versus 1.0 cm) surgical safety margin in curative resection for cT1-2N0 oral tongue cancer.
This study is to collect and validate regulatory-grade real-world data (RWD) in oncology using the novel, Master Observational Trial construct. This data can be then used in real-world evidence (RWE) generation. It will also create reusable infrastructure to allow creation or affiliation with many additional RWD/RWE efforts both prospective and retrospective in nature.
This is a pilot study in the form of a prospective Phase II, single centre, single arm hypoxia study of oral tongue cancer with FAZA-PET imaging and pimonidazole targeted IHC of surgical specimens.
Patients enrolled for the study, who are eligible for NACT, will undergo a pre-treatment workup comprising of Evaluation Under Anesthesia (EUA) for tumor Mapping and tissue biopsy along with a PET-CT scan. Subsequently, they would undergo 3 cycles of NACT (weekly thrice) with DCF. They would be reassessed with PET-CT and EUA +/- biopsy after the end of the third cycle. Those who are achieving CR would undergo adjuvant CTRT. Subjects who have a PR in the PET-CT scan will be re-classified based on the biopsy report. If they remain in the PR group they will undergo surgery but if the biopsy in is negative for malignancy, they will undergo adjuvant CTRT. Those subjects with SD or PD would undergo surgery. Subsequently, further radiation and/ or chemotherapy will be decided based on the final histopathology (of the surgical specimen) reports. PET-CT and EUA +/- HPE analyses would be repeated on follow-up after 3 months of treatment completion.
This study will fill a scientific gap in the current knowledge providing data for evaluation of the palatal augmentation prosthesis as a therapeutic modality in a robust scientific randomized prospective clinical trial. Positive outcomes from this study have the potential to dramatically alter the most common morbidity of oral cancer therapy, namely speech and swallowing function in a population of patients with T1/T2 tumors of the tongue who are not currently routinely recommended for a palatal augmentation prosthesis.
Surgical excision is the mainstay of treatment for tongue cancer. However, surgery-induced immunosuppression has been implicated in the development of post-operative septic complications and neoplasm metastasis. General anesthesia is considered to not only suppress surgical stress, but also affect the immune function directly，such as altering the number and activity of immune cells. It is reported that some anesthetics increase susceptibility to tumor metastasis, apparently by suppressing natural killer cell activity. Different anesthetic techniques and anesthetics used in anesthesia have shown different effects on immunity. Many of the studies were animal trials or performed in vitro; in addition, most are focused on a single drug. To date, there is little published prospective clinical research designed specifically to investigate the effects of different general anesthetic technique on immune function in patients with oral malignant tumors. The aim of this study is going to characterize the immune response of patients undergoing surgery for tongue cancer under 3 types of general anesthesia.
This pilot clinical trial studies transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in treating patients with benign or malignant tumors of the head and neck. TORS is a less invasive type of surgery for head and neck cancer and may have fewer side effects and improve recovery