Invasion of the mandible in gingivobuccal complex cancers: Histopathological analysis of routes of tumour entry and correlation with preoperative assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the most accurate imaging modality predicting mandibular invasion in gingivobuccal (GB) complex cancers. To determine patterns of invasion and routes of tumour entry into the mandible by detailed histopathologic analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective observational study of GB Complex cancers juxtaposed with the mandible clinically necessitating some form of mandibular resection. Orthopantomogram (OPG), Multi Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT), DENTA scan and Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography scan (SPECT) were performed after which the patient was subjected to surgery. Histopathological assessment was systematically performed with serial cuts of the mandibular segment. RESULTS: Of 70 patients, MDCT was the most accurate with area under curve (AUC) of 0.833. OPG, DENTA and SPECT had AUC of 0.714, 0.786 and 0.738 respectively. Mean calculated difference of involved height was -0.025 cm by MDCT (p value 0.87), -0.2 cm by OPG (p value 0.09) and 0.12 by DENTA scan (p value 0.41). Mean difference of involved length was -0.51 cm (p value 0.08) and -1.02 cm (p value 0.04) for MDCT and OPG respectively. 50% of tumour invasion was through the occlusal route while large tumours demonstrated multiple routes of entry. CONCLUSION: -Gingivobuccal complex cancers are homogenous with respect to mandibular invasion, preferred route of tumour entry being the occlusal surface. -Multidetector CT scan is fairly accurate in detecting mandibular involvement and predicting extent of involvement. -Oncological safety can be achieved by positioning the bone cuts corresponding to the adjacent soft tissue margins in segmental mandibulectomy.

Barriers in conducting clinical trials in oncology in the developing world: A cross-sectional survey of oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Several obstacles impede oncologists from performing clinical trials in the developing world. This study aimed to identify these barriers in order of importance and suggest possible remedial measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Design - cross-sectional survey. Two part questionnaire capturing experience of oncologists in practice and conducting trials (Part 1) and perceived barriers pertaining to investigator (training, time), patient (strict follow-up protocol), infrastructure (funds) and professional environment (encouragement from seniors) (Part 2) were administered to oncologists in two different settings: (1) Online portal (Survey Monkey) (2) In person during a national conference (Best of American Society of Clinical Oncology). Responses were captured on a Likert scale (1-5). RESULTS: (436/3021) 14.04% responded. A total of 313 (71.8%) had experience in conducting trials, but these were mainly industry-sponsored or small nonpractice changing studies. Lack of patient follow-up was the most significant barrier (inter quartile range [IQR] 4-5) followed by inadequate training, time and funds (IQR 2-5) and lack of encouragement (IQR 2-4) in decreasing order of frequency. Lack of adequate training was a barrier across all specialties (113 [71.97%] radiation oncologists, 71 [60.68%] medical oncologists and 73 [71.56%] surgical oncologists). More than half of the respondents without experience in clinical trials worked in academic institutions (50.48%). They perceived time constraint as a barrier more than their counterparts into private practice (175/242 [72.31%] vs. 119/177 [66.47%] respectively). CONCLUSION: Inability to maintain patient follow-up, lack of protected time and funds, inadequate training were the most significant barriers. Most of these can be addressed.