Wound healing and recurrence in head and neck cancer: a narrative review
Sections
Open Access Review
Wound healing and recurrence in head and neck cancer: a narrative review

Affiliation:

Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

†These authors share the first authorship.

Micah K. Harris
†, 

Affiliation:

Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

†These authors share the first authorship.

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3871-5509

Wesley L. Cai
†, 

Affiliation:

Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1356-0325

Jenny Kim
, 

Affiliation:

Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

Vanessa Helou
, 

Affiliation:

Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

Joshua D. Smith
, 

Affiliation:

Department of Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

Email: spectorme@upmc.edu

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7646-6075

Matthew E. Spector
*

Explor Target Antitumor Ther. 2026;7:1002405 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37349/etat.2026.1002405

Received: April 25, 2026 Accepted: September 02, 2026 Published: October 15, 2026

Academic Editor: Francesk Mulita, General Hospital of Aigio, Greece

Abstract

There is a growing body of evidence showing that the postoperative wound healing response shares molecular machinery with tumor pathways. Within larger surgical fields such as breast or colorectal cancer, strong preclinical and clinical evidence exists demonstrating a link between postoperative wound complications and cancer recurrence. Head and neck surgery represents a unique landscape with high rates of surgical site infections (SSIs; 20–30%), driven in part by inherent wound contamination from the aerodigestive tract, in addition to prolonged operative times, malnutrition, smoking, and poor overall health. Despite this, studies addressing postoperative wound healing and head and neck cancer (HNC) recurrence remain fragmented at best, with studies demonstrating significant heterogeneity and conflicting results. A thorough understanding of the oncologic implications of wound complications in HNC is vitally important to improve patient outcomes and identify novel therapeutic strategies. This narrative review seeks to synthesize preclinical and clinical studies linking the postoperative wound environment to HNC recurrence. We also seek to highlight emerging approaches to optimize postoperative wound healing for an oncologic benefit, including the role of surgical drain fluid as a novel bioresource, alternative reconstructive hardware, the role of neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and emerging biomaterials.

Keywords

wound healing, head and neck cancer, recurrence, surgical site infection, tumor dormancy, immunotherapy, surgical wound fluid

Introduction

In the 19th century, Virchow proposed that cancers arise at sites of chronic inflammation. This concept was formalized more than a century later by Dvorak, who likened tumors to “wounds that do not heal” [1]. Cancer is now widely recognized to co-opt mechanisms of wound repair. It recruits fibroblasts, induces angiogenesis, suppresses immune surveillance, and remodels the extracellular matrix in ways that permit unregulated growth and metastases [1]. While surgery remains indispensable in the management of solid tumors, many of these same pathways are paradoxically reactivated to heal the postoperative wound [2]. Thus, the surgical wound may be argued not to be a biologically neutral space, but rather a dynamic environment that inadvertently provides a favorable (or unfavorable) niche for residual tumor cells.

There is a growing body of in vitro, translational, and clinical evidence establishing a meaningful link between aberrant wound healing and tumor recurrence following oncologic surgery. In breast surgery, postoperative wound healing fluid has been mechanistically shown to stimulate cancer cell proliferation in vitro [3], and large clinical studies have linked poor wound healing with increased locoregional recurrence [4]. Oncologic head and neck surgery represents a unique landscape that warrants special consideration. Unlike other anatomic subsites, head and neck tumors often involve the aerodigestive tract, resulting in direct contamination of the surgical wound with saliva and oral flora during tumor resection. Maintaining separation of the wound from saliva during postoperative healing is a challenge, with rates of salivary fistulas and surgical site infections (SSIs) often exceeding 20–30% [5, 6]. Malnutrition and smoking are also common in this population, further contributing to poor wound healing [5]. Furthermore, the complexity of head and neck tumors necessitates extensive operations with prolonged operative times and microvascular free flap reconstruction [5].

Despite these unique considerations, studies addressing postoperative wound healing and head and neck cancer (HNC) recurrence remain heterogeneous and fragmented. This narrative review seeks to synthesize preclinical and clinical studies linking the postoperative wound environment to HNC recurrence, in addition to highlighting emerging approaches to optimize postoperative wound healing for an oncologic benefit.

Literature search strategy

A narrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar. Search terms included combinations of the following: “wound healing,” “cancer recurrence,” “HNC,” and “surgical drain fluid”. Additional terms such as “SSI,” “tumor dormancy,” “field cancerization,” “neoadjuvant immunotherapy,” and “biomaterials” were utilized to capture relevant subtopics. The Boolean search method was applied. Studies that examined the relationship between postoperative wound healing microenvironments and tumor recurrence in HNC were searched, and the search was restricted to the English-language literature. The search focused on studies published within the last 11 years (2015–2026), and the final search was conducted in April 2026; seminal preclinical investigations and landmark clinical studies published prior to this window were included where clinically relevant. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, translational in vitro and in vivo studies, and retrospective studies were included. A total of 112 studies were ultimately included. Final study selection was guided by clinical relevance to the review’s scope and was adjudicated by the senior author (MES). This review was not registered and did not adhere to PRISMA or PROSPERO reporting guidelines, consistent with its narrative rather than systematic design.

Preclinical evidence of wound-mediated recurrence and metastasis

The postoperative wound healing cascade generates a milieu rich in mitogens that are essential for tissue repair but are equally capable of driving tumor cell proliferation and invasion in vitro (Figure 1). Wound healing fluid has been shown to be high in concentrations of mitogens such as transforming growth factor-α, insulin-like growth factor (IGF) I and II, platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), basic fibroblast growth factor, hepatocyte growth factor, and epidermal growth factor (EGF), all of which play critical roles in cancer development and growth [7].

Cellular factors that may link wound healing and cancer recurrence include global factors (positive margins, field cancerization, tumor shedding), tumor-intrinsic factors (i.e., tumor dormancy, immune invasion), and tumor stromal factors (i.e., NETosis, macrophage polarization, platelet aggregation). TCR: T cell receptor; MHC-1: major histocompatibility complex-1; STAT3: signal transducer and activator of transcription 3; TGF-β2: transforming growth factor beta 2; EMT: epithelial-mesenchymal transition; NK: natural killer. Created in BioRender. C, W. (2026) https://BioRender.com/mtrv7j2

Mechanisms of wound-induced proliferation and metastasis

Within the head and neck, Licitra et al. [8] supplemented cell culture medium with postoperative wound fluid collected from 23 patients with HNC (12 who subsequently relapsed, 11 who did not). Every drainage sample tested increased cancer cell proliferation in vitro, and the proliferative effect was significantly greater with fluid from patients who later relapsed. Notably, anti-EGF receptor (EGFR) blockade with cetuximab substantially inhibited this drainage-induced proliferation [8]. Similarly, Scherzad et al. [9] showed that signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) pathway activation mediated increased HNC proliferation in response to wound fluid. These in vitro results are supported by early in vivo evidence. Ekblad et al. [10] found that preincubation of HNC cell lines with postoperative human wound fluid increased tumor uptake in nude mouse xenograft models, effects mediated in part through STAT3 and interleukin-6 (IL-6) signaling. While additional in vivo HNC models are lacking, ample evidence from mouse models demonstrates a link between wound healing and tumorigenicity, further supporting the notion of a pro-tumor wound healing microenvironment [11, 12].

Beyond local proliferative effects, the postoperative wound healing response activates multiple mechanisms that facilitate metastatic spread. Meyer et al. [13] showed that supplementing culture medium with wound fluid upregulated epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) markers, a critical step in the metastatic cascade; moreover, tumor cells incubated with wound fluid showed a significantly higher resistance to cisplatin, potentially reducing the efficacy of systemic therapies. Recently, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), which consist of decondensed chromatin and antimicrobial proteins extruded by neutrophils, have been proposed as a novel mechanism for recurrence and metastatic spread [14, 15]. While evolved to sequester pathogens, NETs can also facilitate recurrence by physically trapping and hiding cancer cells [16]. Surgical stress has been shown to encourage platelet-tumor cell aggregate entrapment within NETs via Toll-like receptor 4-extracellular signal-regulated kinase 5-glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (TLR4-ERK5-GPIIb/IIIa) signaling, thereby protecting circulating tumor cells from immune clearance [16]. Surgery-induced NETs are also capable of driving distant metastatic seeding in murine models through various mechanisms such as reprogramming of lipid metabolism, with early correlative studies in humans beginning to emerge [15, 17].

Surgery-induced immune suppression

Surgery is recognized to induce a state of systemic and local immunosuppression, which may allow residual cancer cells to evade immune surveillance in the perioperative period [18]. Natural killer (NK) cell dysfunction is a well-characterized mediator of this phenomenon. In murine models, surgical stress impairs NK cytotoxicity through various mechanisms including prostaglandin-mediated and catecholamine-mediated pathways [19]. A possible coagulation-dependent mechanism for this impaired cytotoxicity was elucidated by Seth et al. [20], who demonstrated in murine models that surgery induced fibrin and platelet clot formation around circulating tumor cell emboli, physically shielding them from NK cell-mediated detection and destruction; interestingly, perioperative anticoagulation reversed much of this protective effect. Surgical immune suppression may also drive metastatic spread, as adoptive transfer of surgically stressed NK cells into NK-deficient murine hosts has been found to increase pulmonary metastases [21].

Surgery also triggers expansion of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and suppression of cytotoxic T cells. Ananth et al. [22] showed that surgical stress abrogated pre-existing T cell-mediated anti-tumor immunity in a mouse model of cancer vaccination, with reduced CD8+ T cell cytokine production and concurrent expansion of pro-tumorigenic MDSCs. More recently, Angka et al. [23] used single-cell RNA sequencing to demonstrate that surgery-induced MDSCs upregulated phosphoinositide 3-kinase gamma (PI3K-γ) signaling, and that PI3K-γ inhibition reduced postoperative metastases in murine models, identifying a potentially actionable immunologic target in the perioperative period.

Radiation-induced immune changes

Many HNC patients receive radiation, whether definitively, as induction or neoadjuvant treatment, or in the adjuvant setting. Radiation is known to impair wound healing, which by extension may have oncologic implications [24]. Radiation triggers release of transforming growth factor beta 2 (TGF-β2), differentiation of fibroblasts into myofibroblasts, deposition of collagen-rich matrix, and reduction of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) activity [25]. This results in a hypoxic, hypovascular, and hypocellular tissue state that impairs wound healing and leaves the area susceptible to infection. These changes can persist years after completion of radiation therapy, with Bian et al. showing that irradiated dermal fibroblasts retain “radiation memory” in the form of epigenetic reprogramming that impairs their motility and wound-repair capacity long after exposure [26]. In fact, many of the same inflammatory signals seen post-radiation are the same as those implicated in tumor recurrence. TGF-β2, often cited as the main regulator of radiation fibrosis, is also implicated in HNC dormancy and dissemination [27]. This raises the underexplored possibility that the fibrotic, hypoxic, chronically inflamed post-radiation wound bed may represent a distinctly permissive niche for residual disease. Despite this, the interaction between radiation-induced wound pathology and HNC recurrence remains essentially unstudied, and no study to date has stratified the wound-complication-recurrence relationship by prior radiation exposure. Given that radiation is nearly ubiquitous in HNC management, dedicated investigation of how the irradiated wound microenvironment influences both healing and oncologic outcomes represents a critical and clinically actionable gap.

Etiology of residual disease

Preclinical evidence has convincingly shown that the wound healing microenvironment has the capacity to be a favorable environment for cancer cell growth. Current proposed mechanisms require viable malignant or pre-malignant cells to be present in the wound, however. Here, we review etiologies of residual disease and pre-malignant cells that may be subject to stimulation by the wound environment.

Microscopic residual disease and tumor dormancy

Despite high rates of negative margins on pathology (> 90%), recurrence of HNC occurs in up to 30% of patients, with locoregional recurrence predominating, suggesting that microscopic disease remains in the wound bed [28]. Various overlapping mechanisms have been proposed. One prevailing etiology is that pathologic examination may fail to identify residual disease. In a landmark study by Brennan et al. [29] in 1995, molecular markers were used to show that 53% of specimens with histologically negative margins contained clonal populations of tumor cells. More recent studies have reported false negative rates up to 38% [30]. Moreover, positive margins remain a challenge in the head and neck, with rates of up to 15–30% being reported [31–33].

Another common theory is tumor dormancy, in which residual cancer cells persist in a quiescent, non-proliferating state. Dormant cells survive surgical stress and evade immune detection, retaining the capacity to re-enter the cell cycle depending on environmental signals [34]. The postoperative wound is rich in inflammatory cytokines, which may serve as a trigger for tumor dormancy, reactivation of dormant cells, or proliferation of residual viable cells [12]. In HNC, the cytokine TGF-β2 has been shown to induce an atypical EMT state that promotes tumor dormancy and immune cell evasion via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)-dependent signaling [27]. Conversely, common wound healing factors such as M2-polarized macrophages and pro-inflammatory cytokines (i.e., IL-8) can reawaken dormant cells through MAPK and ERK signaling [35]. These data suggest that the wound healing microenvironment plays a dynamic role in manipulating dormancy of residual cancer cells, ultimately contributing to late recurrence.

Intraoperative tumor shedding

Beyond leaving microscopic residual disease or dormant tumor cells, surgical manipulation itself liberates tumor cells into the wound bed, draining lymphatics, and systemic circulation. Early work by Hansen et al. [36] showed that in 61 patients undergoing oncologic surgery for multiple tumor types including HNC, blood recovered from the surgical field contained malignant cells in 57 cases; importantly, these cells retained ex vivo tumorigenicity in a xenograft model, supporting their biological viability. More recently, Mastronicola et al. [37] detected circulating tumor cells in surgical drain fluid on postoperative day 1 in 70% of patients undergoing head and neck surgery, demonstrating direct seeding of the wound environment by viable tumor cells. Shed tumor cells are not limited only to the local wound, but are also found in the peripheral circulation. Jatana et al. [38] demonstrated a greater than 6-fold increase in circulating tumor cells in the peripheral blood of HNC patients following tumor resection, with 8% of patients who were circulating tumor cell-negative preoperatively converting to positive after surgery.

Despite this evidence, establishing a direct causal link between disseminated cells deposited in the wound and subsequent development into clinically evident recurrence remains inherently difficult. Correlative clinical evidence, however, supports this concept. Stomal recurrence following total laryngectomy is more frequent when tracheostomy is performed prior to resection, implicating direct implantation of tumor cells [39, 40]. Similarly, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) site metastases occur in approximately 0.5% of patients with upper aerodigestive tract malignancies, with the “pull through” technique, which drags the tube through the tumor-bearing upper aerodigestive tract, increasing the risk of PEG stoma recurrence [41, 42].

Field cancerization

Another mechanism by which the postoperative wound environment may promote disease relates to field cancerization. Originally described by Slaughter et al. [43], field cancerization posits that carcinogen exposure (i.e., smoking) induces widespread molecular alterations across a region, predisposing to multiple independent primary malignancies. This phenomenon is well-established in HNC, where rates of second primary tumors approach 10–15% over 10 years [44]. Preneoplastic fields can extend > 7cm from the primary tumor [45], with Tabor et al. [46, 47] detecting genetically altered fields beyond the surgical resection margins in 36% of HNC patients; in 61% of cases with locoregional recurrence, the recurrent tumor originated from a residual precursor field rather than the primary tumor site. Field cancerization raises the concern that postoperative wound healing factors may not only act on residual tumor cells but also on dysplastic precancerous mucosa. Murine wounding models have demonstrated that neutrophils recruited to the wound are capable of redirecting proliferating signaling toward pre-neoplastic cells via prostaglandin E2-mediated signaling, accelerating malignant transformation [11]. Modulating the postoperative wound healing environment may therefore represent a rational therapeutic strategy to limit not only the growth of residual tumor cells, but also malignant transformation of premalignant cells within the surrounding dysplastic epithelium.

Clinical evidence linking wound complications and recurrence

Despite strong preclinical evidence demonstrating a link between the postoperative wound and tumor recurrence, translating these findings into the clinical setting has been met with mixed results. The most mature clinical evidence examining wound complications and recurrence in the clinical setting comes from breast surgery. In a cohort of 1,065 mastectomy patients, Murthy et al. [4] demonstrated a significant association between postoperative wound complications (9% of patients) and systemic recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) 2.87], an effect that persisted after controlling for tumor stage and risk factors. More recently, a systematic review of 10 retrospective cohort studies encompassing 37,657 mastectomy patients identified a relationship between wound complications and worse 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS; HR 1.48) [48]. However, 5 of these studies failed to demonstrate a significant relationship, and there was a high degree of heterogeneity amongst the studies (I2 = 95%) [48]. This heterogeneity carries into HNC-specific studies (Table 1) [49–61].

 Review of published literature investigating the relationship of SSI on HNC survival outcomes.

Author, yearn% of free flaps in cohort Primary siteComplicationFindingsStudy designLevel of evidenceUse of a standardized SSI definition
Schantz et al. 1980 [49]201Not reportedLarynxSSIImproved 5-year OS (44% vs 31%, P-value not reported).RetrospectiveIIINo
Jackson and Rice 1990 [50]100Not reportedAll HNC sitesSSINo association with RFS (43% vs 64%, P = 0.20).RetrospectiveIIINo
Grandis et al. 1992 [51]134Not reportedAll HNC sitesSSIWorse DFS (40% vs. 55%, P = 0.04)RetrospectiveIIINo
Rodrigo and Suárez 1998 [52]158Not reportedLarynxSSIIncreased recurrence (57% vs 27%, P = 0.04); no association with 3-year OS (57% vs. 73%, P = 0.20). RetrospectiveIIINo
Penel et al. 2004 [53]9533 (34.7%)HNC violating the aerodigestive tractSSINo association with local recurrence (25.5% vs. 22.9%, P = 0.8) or death (53.2% vs. 56.3%, P = 0.39)ProspectiveIINo
González-Márquez et al. 2012 [54]129Not reportedLarynx and hypopharynxSSI Worse 3-year DSS (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.01–3.60, P = 0.04).RetrospectiveIIINo
Hirakawa et al. 2013 [55]277154 (55.6%)All HNC sitesSSINo association with 5-year OS (46.7% vs 54.2% SSI, P = 0.57)RetrospectiveIIINo
Mascarella et al. 2019 [56]114Not reportedOral cavityPostoperative infection, including systemicWorse 5-year OS (24.1% vs. 65.2%, P < 0.0001) RetrospectiveIIINo
de Almeida et al. 2019 [57]551Not reportedOral cavitySSINo association with 5-year RFS (51% vs. 62%, P = 0.21) or OS (63% vs. 67%, P = 0.71)RetrospectiveIIINo
Davies et al. 2021 [58]550135 (24.5%)Larynx (salvage laryngectomy)Pharyngocutaneous fistula Associated with distant metastases (HR 2, 95% CI 1.22–3.27, P = 0.005).Multicenter retrospectiveIIINo
Hiraoka et al. 2022 [59]6767 (100%)Oral cavitySSIWorse OS (HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.038–6.970, P = 0.04)RetrospectiveIIINo
Thiagarajan et al. 2023 [60]24583 (33.8%)All HNC sitesSSIWorse DFS (OR 3.75, 95% CI 1.799–7.849, P < 0.001)RetrospectiveIIINo
Yonaga et al. 2026 [61]346346 (100%)All HNC sitesClavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa SSIWorse OS (HR 3.53, CI 95% 1.8-7.01, P < 0.001) and RFS (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2–4.1, P < 0.001)RetrospectiveIIIClavien-Dindo

DFS: disease-free survival; HNC: head and neck cancer; RFS: recurrence-free survival; SSI: surgical site infection; OR: odds ratio; OS: overall survival.

The earliest study by Schantz et al. in 1980 [49] paradoxically reported improved survival with postoperative wound infection. A proposed mechanism for such findings is the “Coley’s toxin” phenomenon, whereby bacterial pathogen-associated molecular patterns prime and activate the adaptive immune system that may then target cancer cells [49]. However, these data have been outweighed in most modern cohorts. Subsequent work by Grandis et al. [51] found that wound infection independently predicted decreased survival with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.4, while more recent work by González-Márquez et al. [54] and Mascarella et al. [56] confirmed wound infection as an independent prognostic factor for disease-specific survival (HR 2.54). Similarly, Yonaga et al. [61] demonstrated that Clavien-Dindo grade > IIIa SSI independently predicted both worse overall survival (OS; HR 3.539) and RFS (HR 2.095) in a group of 346 free flap patients. In the largest study of oral cavity cancer patients (n = 551), however, de Almeida et al. [57] found that while patients who developed postoperative wound infection (n = 98) had a higher risk of recurrence and death on univariate analysis, these relationships did not persist when controlling for tumor stage and pathological risk factors on multivariate analysis, though there was an increased trend (P = 0.10) toward distant metastases. Similarly, Davies et al. [58] conducted a large multi-institutional review of 550 total laryngectomy patients, finding that patients who developed pharyngocutaneous fistula (n = 127) had a 2-fold higher rate of distant metastases, though the rates of disease-free and OS were similar. In these studies, however, wound complications lacked standardized definitions, likely contributing to the observed heterogeneity.

Postoperative wound complications can also delay the initiation of adjuvant therapy, which can indirectly impair oncologic outcomes. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend that postoperative radiation begin within 6 weeks of surgery [62]. However, about 55% of patients fail to meet this benchmark [63]. Janz et al. [64] demonstrated that patients with wound complications were nearly 3 times more likely to experience delayed postoperative radiation (OR 2.79). Similarly, Thiagarajan et al. [60] identified SSI as the single strongest predictor of delayed adjuvant treatment initiation (OR 3.79) in a cohort of 245 patients with upper aerodigestive tract squamous cell carcinoma. The oncologic consequences of these delays are well established. In a landmark National Cancer Database analysis of 41,291 HNC patients, Graboyes et al. [63] demonstrated that initiating postoperative radiotherapy beyond 6 weeks was independently associated with decreased OS (adjusted HR 1.13).

There are several possible explanations for the heterogeneity seen in these clinical studies. A major confounder is the complexity of wound healing, which can be influenced by numerous factors, including preoperative radiation, hypothyroidism, diabetes, nutritional status, perioperative transfusion, and tumor characteristics, which are often difficult to control for [65–67]. Survival outcomes are equally complex and are influenced by surgical technique and adjuvant therapies. Thus, linking the two variables becomes inherently complex. Human papillomavirus-positive and negative tumors have distinctly different biologies, immunologic backgrounds, treatment, and prognosis [68]. However, no study to date has compared the wound-recurrence relationship between the groups.

Free flap reconstruction is also an important metric to report. Receiving a free flap indicates the presence of a large surgical wound that is at higher risk of healing complications. Conversely, free flaps can improve wound healing through healthy vascular support, delivery of growth factors, and immune cell support. The immunologic signature of flap transfer differs from non-reconstructed surgical beds—analyses of postoperative wound exudate from free flap reconstructed breast defects demonstrated a blunting of the proinflammatory cytokine surge and a shift toward an anti-inflammatory profile, though the same has not been explored in HNC [69]. This is supported clinically by lower rates of salivary fistula and wound-healing complications observed with free flap utilization, as shown by Hanasono et al. in oral cavity resections and corroborated by Moreno et al. for laryngectomy defects [70, 71]. However, it should be noted that whether these differences contribute to improved oncologic outcomes remains an unanswered mechanistic question. Only 6 of the 13 published studies on wound healing and HNC recurrence reported the number of free flaps, with only 2 studies including a cohort of free flap patients alone (Table 1).

Finally, diagnosing wound complications relies on clinical acumen, which can often be subjective and imprecise. Only one of the 13 studies examining wound healing and recurrence in HNC used an established classification (Clavien-Dindo) scale (Table 1). To facilitate better comparisons, the use of standardized classifications should be included in future studies. Wound complication scores such as InCISE have been proposed but have yet to be integrated into clinical practice [72].

Clinical interventions and future directions

Despite heterogeneous clinical data, there is a compelling biologic rationale supporting a link between postoperative wound healing and recurrence in HNC. Translating this knowledge into clinical intervention requires strategies that reduce wound complications but do so with an explicit awareness of oncologic consequences. Here, we review emerging and investigational approaches to wound healing optimization in head and neck surgery, with particular attention to their potential oncologic implications.

Surgical wound fluid

Surgical wound fluid is an exciting bioresource that allows direct sampling of the postoperative wound healing environment (Figure 2). Surgical drains are routinely placed in the neck after major head and neck surgery to drain wound effluent over subsequent days. Because wound fluid accumulated in the bulb of the surgical drain is otherwise discarded, use of drain fluid does not require additional interventions or modification of existing clinical infrastructure. Traditional blood-based labs such as complete blood count are inherently nonspecific, reflecting systemic inflammation rather than localizing to the surgical wound itself. As such, peripheral blood markers cannot differentiate between SSIs and other causes of postoperative inflammation (e.g., pneumonia, urinary tract infections, or blood stream infections). Unlike blood samples, which often dilute molecular signals, surgical wound fluid provides a liquid biopsy that is measured directly from the surgical bed, offering improved specificity compared to peripheral blood markers [73]. Drain fluid-based markers of inflammation or measurement of cell types within the wound may ultimately prove superior to blood-based labs to monitor SSI, though additional work is needed.

Surgical wound fluid as a localized bioresource of the postoperative wound healing environment. TNF-α: tumor-necrosis factor alpha; IL-6: interleukin-6; MMP-1: matrix metalloproteinase-1. Created in BioRender. Helou, V. (2026) https://BioRender.com/puwiizd

Despite the clinical relevance and potential, limited attention has been paid to wound fluid-derived markers of wound complications. The majority of data comes from retrospective, level II/III clinical studies. Amylase, an enzyme found in human saliva, is the most heavily investigated. Drain fluid amylase was first reported to correlate with pharyngocutaneous and orocutaneous fistula in 1984 [74]. More recent data have shown drain fluid amylase to be a particularly useful marker to identify patients at low risk of fistula, with negative predictive values of > 90% [6, 75]. Others have examined more traditional wound healing factors. Lassig et al. [76] measured a panel of wound healing factors in the surgical drains of HNC patients 24 hours after surgery, showing IL-1β, IL-8, and MMP-9 to be higher in the wound fluid of those who went on to have wound complications, though predictive strengths were not reported. Additional studies have shown postoperative day 1 TNF-α to predict SSI following neck dissection in HNC patients [77].

Despite these promising data, drain fluid-derived markers of wound complications have not yet been integrated into clinical investigations. A potential avenue is to utilize drain fluid biomarkers to stratify patients into low- and high-risk groups early in the postoperative course, possibly allowing for early intervention in patients at a high-risk of developing wound complications, whereas those at a low-risk may be placed on an accelerated recovery protocol. Moreover, surgical drain fluid may continue to be utilized as a tool to study the postoperative wound healing microenvironment, providing further insights into the relation of wound healing and cancer recurrence.

Beyond markers of wound complications, surgical drain fluid has been utilized as a liquid biopsy resource to identify predictors of recurrence, further underlining the relationship between the postoperative wound environment and recurrence. Lassig et al. [78] showed that MMP-1, MMP-3, and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 levels in the wound fluid were associated with recurrence in a small cohort of 20 patients. The most convincing data was produced by Lazare et. al., who utilized a tumor-based assay to demonstrate that cell-free tumor DNA mutations in surgical drain fluid strongly predicted tumor recurrence, outperforming and complementing traditional pathologic risk criteria [73, 79]. Given these promising findings, surgical drain fluid may prove to be a powerful bioresource to investigate both wound complications and recurrence.

Mandible hardware

Mandible hardware represents another understudied area within head and neck surgery that may lend itself to improving wound healing complications. Segmental mandibulectomy is often required after resection of advanced malignancies, and reconstruction plates are typically used for reconstruction, with or without vascularized bone flaps [80]. Though titanium plates are considered standard of care, clinical studies have shown hardware-related complications to occur in anywhere from 30–50% of patients [81, 82]. These complications, such as plate exposure, infection, plate fracture, and screw loosening, can result in chronic, non-healing wounds that are often contaminated by saliva due to intraoral communication. Moreover, preclinical studies have shown that the high atomic number of titanium causes backscatter of radiation, resulting in significant dose enhancement at the hardware-tissue interface, while shadowing reduces the radiation dose underneath the plate [83–85]. Despite these risks, no studies have yet examined a link between plate complications and cancer recurrence or delay to adjuvant therapy initiation.

Alternative plating material may be a promising method of reducing plate-related wound complications and simultaneously improving oncologic control. Biodegradable magnesium plates are being tested in the preclinical setting and have demonstrated similar biomechanical performance to titanium, though clinical testing is pending [86]. Perhaps the most promising material is carbon-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK). In the neurosurgery field, CFR-PEEK is routinely used in cranioplasty and spinal fusion [87]. CFR-PEEK offers several advantages, including radiolucency, biocompatibility, and minimal radiation dose perturbation [88, 89]. Clinical experience with CFR-PEEK plates in head and neck reconstruction has shown potential in preclinical models, though clinical applications remain limited to case series [90, 91]. More rigorous biomechanical testing and structured clinical evaluations using alternative plating materials should be pursued in order to decrease wound complications and improve radiation dosimetry in mandibulectomy patients.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy

Immunotherapy has fundamentally reshaped the field of HNC. In 2016, the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD-1) monoclonal antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab were approved as first-line therapy for recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [92]. In June 2025, the FDA approved neoadjuvant pembrolizumab for resectable locally advanced HNC following the results from the phase III KEYNOTE-689 trial demonstrating an 11% improved event-free survival with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition [93, 94]. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors can interfere with wound healing through disruption of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) mediated inflammation resolution, impaired polarization from pro-inflammatory M1 to reparative M2 macrophages, disrupted fibroblast function, and T cell-mediated tissue injury [95].

While the majority of clinical data are reassuring, findings have been heterogeneous. In particular, patients undergoing complex surgeries may be at higher risk of postoperative wound complications. A multi-institutional propensity-matched study by Philips et al. [96] (n = 462) found no difference in postoperative complications in those who received neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition, though only 28.9% underwent free flap reconstruction. A large retrospective cohort of 692 patients by Chen et al. [97] interestingly found that major wound complications were lower in the neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group (9.2% vs. 17.8%), possibly reflecting tumor downstaging, though again a minority (36%) required free flap reconstruction. In the only study that included solely free flap reconstruction patients (n = 132), Mays et al. [98] showed that those who received neoadjuvant immunotherapy (62%) demonstrated higher rates of major wound complications (OR 3.7), suggesting that vigilance is warranted for patients undergoing more complex surgeries.

Ongoing trials are investigating neoadjuvant dual immune checkpoint blockade, such as anti-PD-1 in conjunction with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA4) or anti-lymphocyte activation gene-3 (anti-LAG-3) [99]. Early data has shown higher rates of immune-related adverse effects with dual inhibition, though postoperative wound healing complications have not yet been investigated. As new immunotherapy agents emerge and indications for neoadjuvant therapy continue to evolve, the impact on postoperative wound healing should be closely evaluated.

Moreover, emerging evidence suggests that the extent of neck dissection may influence the efficacy of immunotherapy. Saddawi-Konefka et al. [100, 101] demonstrated in murine models of HNC that ablation of tumor-draining lymph nodes eliminated the tumor response to immune checkpoint inhibition and worsened OS. These results indicate that lymph nodes are not merely metastatic waystations but are hubs for immunotherapy response, supporting lymphatic-preserving approaches. As such, some surgeons in the field are anecdotally moving toward limited neck dissections, in which less extensive neck dissections are performed to theoretically preserve systemic antitumor immunity. This “supraselective neck dissection” approach may lend itself to less extensive surgical wounds and perhaps accelerated postoperative wound healing, though currently there is a lack of clinical data to support such practice. As this aspect of the field continues to evolve, the effect of neck dissection extent on the postoperative wound should be examined.

Emerging wound healing interventions and oncologic implications

Following established perioperative measures is fundamental to any strategy aimed at reducing wound complications. Meticulous surgical technique, watertight wound closure, preoperative nutrition, appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis, and adherence to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are just a few interventions that form the foundation of wound healing optimization [5]. Beyond these standards, there is a growing body of evidence describing novel interventions to improve wound healing that warrant consideration.

Intraoperative perfusion assessment is a promising avenue to reduce wound complications. The SPY perfusion assessment system (LifeCell Corp., Branchburg, NJ, USA) uses indocyanine green angiography to provide real-time intraoperative visualization of tissue perfusion, enabling surgeons to identify and resect poorly perfused zones prior to wound closure. Clinical data from breast surgery suggest SPY-guided resection reduces skin flap necrosis and wound complication rates [102]. Within head and neck surgery, adequate tissue perfusion is critical to prevent salivary fistulas, which often develop despite meticulous pharyngeal closure and free flap reconstruction. Early clinical data have shown that patients who develop salivary fistula demonstrate lower perfusion of the native pharyngeal mucosa intraoperatively, though prospective trials are needed to validate these findings [103].

Novel biomaterials represent perhaps the most rapidly evolving frontier in wound healing science, with potential applications in head and neck surgery that extend beyond simple tissue coverage, though it should be noted that these remain in the preclinical stage. Fish skin-derived acellular matrices, ex vivo-produced oral mucosal equivalents, bioactive glasses, Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA)-based drug delivery scaffolds, and electrospun membranes have each demonstrated capacity to modulate the local inflammatory milieu and promote organized mucosal regeneration [104]. Injectable reactive oxygen species-scavenging hydrogels represent a particularly intriguing approach: by neutralizing the oxidative stress that perpetuates chronic wound inflammation, these materials may shift the wound microenvironment away from a pro-tumorigenic state toward one more conducive to orderly healing [105]. Hydrogels that mimic the extracellular matrix architecture further support local tissue regeneration by providing a scaffold for fibroblast and keratinocyte ingrowth [106]. Bioprinting technology, which enables spatially precise deposition of cells and bioactive molecules, offers the future possibility of constructing patient-specific wound-healing constructs tailored to the complex three-dimensional defects generated by ablative head and neck surgery [107].

Autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) are regenerative products prepared by centrifugation of a patient’s own blood. Re-infusion releases concentrated growth factors [PDGF, TGF-β2, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), EGF, and IGF] that promote angiogenesis, fibroblast recruitment, and re-epithelialization. APCs can be divided into four groups by leukocyte content and fibrin architecture—pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP), leukocyte- and platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP), pure platelet-rich fibrin (P-PRF), and leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) [108, 109]. Within head and neck surgeries, a randomized controlled trial of 67 total laryngectomy patients found that PRF applied to the pharyngeal repair significantly reduced pharyngocutaneous fistula (5.7% vs. 31.3%), a randomized trial in partial parotidectomy reported reduced salivary fistula with perioperative PRP, and a 2026 systematic review across otologic, rhinologic, and laryngologic surgery found consistent improvements in tissue healing attributed to downregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines and MMP-9 modulation [110–112]. It should be considered that in theory, the same growth factors in APCs may stimulate residual tumor growth as described earlier, though no studies have investigated this aspect.

Many other wound healing interventions are on the horizon. As new interventions and biologics are tested clinically, monitoring the oncologic impact of improved wound healing will be critical.

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this review. First, as a narrative review, the methodology did not strictly adhere to PRISMA or PROSPERO reporting guidelines typically utilized for systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The inclusion of the 99 studies was guided by clinical relevance and adjudicated by the senior author, which introduces an inherent degree of subjectivity and potential selection bias. Consequently, the search strategy was not exhaustive, and the review does not cover every available literary source on the topic. Furthermore, this manuscript serves to synthesize existing preclinical and clinical evidence rather than presenting findings from an original prospective study conducted by the authors. Finally, the overarching conclusions of this review are constrained by the quality of the underlying literature itself, which is marked by significant heterogeneity, conflicting results, a heavy reliance on retrospective cohorts, and a notable lack of standardized definitions for evaluating SSIs.

Conclusion

The relationship between postoperative wound healing and HNC recurrence is supported by a compelling body of preclinical evidence showing that the surgical wound contains healing factors capable of stimulating tumor cell growth and dormancy reactivation. Clinical evidence linking wound complications to recurrence remains heterogeneous, likely hindered by inconsistent definitions, subjective diagnoses, and an inherent difficulty discerning wound-related effects from underlying tumor biology. Nonetheless, several promising strategies exist to modulate the postoperative wound with potential oncologic benefit, including surgical wound fluid biomarker profiling, alternative mandible plate materials, and novel biomaterials. As oncologic therapies for HNC continue to evolve, continued characterization of wound outcomes will be essential to not only optimize functional recovery, but to improve disease control and survival outcomes.

Abbreviations

anti-PD-1: anti-programmed cell death protein-1

APCs: autologous platelet concentrates

CFR-PEEK: carbon-reinforced polyetheretherketone

DFS: disease-free survival

EGF: epidermal growth factor

EMT: epithelial-mesenchymal transition

HNC: head and neck cancer

HR: hazard ratio

IGF: insulin-like growth factor

IL-6: interleukin-6

MDSC: myeloid-derived suppressor cell

MMP: matrix metalloproteinase

NETs: neutrophil extracellular traps

NK: natural killer

OR: odds ratio

OS: overall survival

PDGF: platelet-derived growth factor

PEG: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

PI3K-γ: phosphoinositide 3-kinase gamma

P-PRF: pure platelet-rich fibrin

P-PRP: pure platelet-rich plasma

RFS: recurrence-free survival

SSIs: surgical site infections

STAT3: signal transducer and activator of transcription 3

TGF-β2: transforming growth factor beta 2

Declarations

Author contributions

MKH: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. JK, WLC, VH: Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. JDS: Writing—review & editing, Supervision. MES: Conceptualization, Writing—review & editing, Supervision. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2026.

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Balkwill F, Mantovani A. Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow? Lancet. 2001;357:539–45. [DOI] [PubMed]
Hua Y, Bergers G. Tumors vs. Chronic Wounds: An Immune Cell’s Perspective. Front Immunol. 2019;10:2178. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Ramolu L, Christ D, Abecassis J, Rodier JF. Stimulation of breast cancer cell lines by post-surgical drainage fluids. Anticancer Res. 2014;34:3489–92. [PubMed]
Murthy BL, Thomson CS, Dodwell D, Shenoy H, Mikeljevic JS, Forman D, et al. Postoperative wound complications and systemic recurrence in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2007;97:1211–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Cannon RB, Houlton JJ, Mendez E, Futran ND. Methods to reduce postoperative surgical site infections after head and neck oncology surgery. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:e405–13. [DOI] [PubMed]
Harris MK, Kubik M, Solari MG, Contrera KJ, Odeniyi O, Morton Z, et al. Drain Fluid Amylase as an Early Negative Predictor of Salivary Fistula Following Free Flap Reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2025;45:e70066. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Wang D, Hu K, Gao N, Zhang H, Jiang Y, Liu C, et al. High throughput screening of cytokines, chemokines and matrix metalloproteinases in wound fluid induced by mammary surgery. Oncotarget. 2015;6:29296–310. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Licitra L, Perrone F, Tamborini E, Bertola L, Ghirelli C, Negri T, et al. Role of EGFR family receptors in proliferation of squamous carcinoma cells induced by wound healing fluids of head and neck cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1886–93. [DOI] [PubMed]
Scherzad A, Gehrke T, Meyer T, Ickrath P, Bregenzer M, Eiter R, et al. Wound fluid enhances cancer cell proliferation via activation of STAT3 signal pathway in vitro. Oncol Rep. 2019;41:2919–26. [DOI] [PubMed]
Ekblad L, Lindgren G, Persson E, Kjellén E, Wennerberg J. Cell-line-specific stimulation of tumor cell aggressiveness by wound healing factors – a central role for STAT3. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:33. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Antonio N, Bønnelykke-Behrndtz ML, Ward LC, Collin J, Christensen IJ, Steiniche T, et al. The wound inflammatory response exacerbates growth of pre-neoplastic cells and progression to cancer. EMBO J. 2015;34:2219–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Krall JA, Reinhardt F, Mercury OA, Pattabiraman DR, Brooks MW, Dougan M, et al. The systemic response to surgery triggers the outgrowth of distant immune-controlled tumors in mouse models of dormancy. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10:eaan3464. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Meyer TJ, Stöth M, Moratin H, Ickrath P, Herrmann M, Kleinsasser N, et al. Cultivation of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells with Wound Fluid Leads to Cisplatin Resistance via Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Induction. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:4474. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Cools-Lartigue J, Spicer J, McDonald B, Gowing S, Chow S, Giannias B, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps sequester circulating tumor cells and promote metastasis. J Clin Investig. 2013;123:3446–58. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Huang MY, Lippuner C, Schiff M, Book M, Stueber F. Neutrophil extracellular trap formation during surgical procedures: a pilot study. Sci Rep. 2023;13:15217. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Olsson AK, Cedervall J. NETosis in Cancer – Platelet–Neutrophil Crosstalk Promotes Tumor-Associated Pathology. Front Immunol. 2016;7:373. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Haykal T, Yang R, Tohme C, He Z, Liu S, Geller DA, et al. Surgery-Induced Neutrophil Extracellular Traps Promote Tumor Metastasis by Reprogramming Cancer Cell Lipid Metabolism. Cancer Res. 2025;85:4995–5014. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Cheng X, Zhang H, Hamad A, Huang H, Tsung A. Surgery-mediated tumor-promoting effects on the immune microenvironment. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;86:408–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Market M, Baxter KE, Angka L, Kennedy MA, Auer RC. The Potential for Cancer Immunotherapy in Targeting Surgery-Induced Natural Killer Cell Dysfunction. Cancers. 2018;11:2. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Seth R, Tai LH, Falls T, de Souza CT, Bell JC, Carrier M, et al. Surgical Stress Promotes the Development of Cancer Metastases by a Coagulation-Dependent Mechanism Involving Natural Killer Cells in a Murine Model. Ann Surg. 2013;258:158–68. [DOI] [PubMed]
Tai LH, de Souza CT, Bélanger S, Ly L, Alkayyal AA, Zhang J, et al. Preventing Postoperative Metastatic Disease by Inhibiting Surgery-Induced Dysfunction in Natural Killer Cells. Cancer Res. 2013;73:97–107. [DOI] [PubMed]
Ananth AA, Tai LH, Lansdell C, Alkayyal AA, Baxter KE, Angka L, et al. Surgical Stress Abrogates Pre-Existing Protective T Cell Mediated Anti-Tumor Immunity Leading to Postoperative Cancer Recurrence. PLOS ONE. 2016;11:e0155947. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Angka L, Tennakoon G, Cook DP, Martel AB, Market M, Tanese de Souza C, et al. Preventing surgery-induced natural killer cell suppression and metastases by inhibiting PI3K-gamma signaling in myeloid-derived suppressor cells. J ImmunoTher Cancer. 2026;14:e013304. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Wang Y, Wang M, Hou L, Xiang F, Zhao X, Qian M. Incidence and risk factors of surgical site infection in patients with head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2023;45:2925–44. [DOI] [PubMed]
Zheng M, Liu Z, He Y. Radiation-induced fibrosis: Mechanisms and therapeutic strategies from an immune microenvironment perspective. Immunology. 2024;172:533–46. [DOI] [PubMed]
Bian X, Piipponen M, Liu Z, Luo L, Geara J, Chen Y, et al. Epigenetic memory of radiotherapy in dermal fibroblasts impairs wound repair capacity in cancer survivors. Nat Commun. 2024;15:9286. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Bragado P, Estrada Y, Parikh F, Krause S, Capobianco C, Farina HG, et al. TGF-β2 dictates disseminated tumour cell fate in target organs through TGF-β-RIII and p38α/β signalling. Nat Cell Biol. 2013;15:1351–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Ketschau J, Mohr J, Grabenhorst A, Singer H, Kram H, Leopold C, et al. From Nodal Metastasis to Oncologic Recurrence in Tongue and Oral Floor Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Distinct Failure Patterns and Clinicopathological Risk Profiles. Head Neck. 2026;[Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed]
Brennan JA, Mao L, Hruban RH, Boyle JO, Eby YJ, Koch WM, et al. Molecular Assessment of Histopathological Staging in Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:429–35. [DOI] [PubMed]
de Carvalho AC, Kowalski LP, Campos AH, Soares FA, Carvalho AL, Vettore AL. Clinical significance of molecular alterations in histologically negative surgical margins of head and neck cancer patients. Oral Oncol. 2012;48:240–8. [DOI] [PubMed]
Smits RW, Koljenović S, Hardillo JA, Ten Hove I, Meeuwis CA, Sewnaik A, et al. Resection margins in oral cancer surgery: Room for improvement. Head Neck. 2015;38:E2197–203. [DOI] [PubMed]
Li MM, Puram SV, Silverman DA, Old MO, Rocco JW, Kang SY. Margin Analysis in Head and Neck Cancer: State of the Art and Future Directions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:4070–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Sharma RK, Orosco RK, Philips R, Faraji F, Esce AR, Topf MC. Positive Margin Rates in Oral Cavity and Oropharyngeal Malignancies: A National Analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2025;172:922–30. [DOI] [PubMed]
Aguirre-Ghiso JA. Models, mechanisms and clinical evidence for cancer dormancy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7:834–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Kerneur C, Cano CE, Olive D. Major pathways involved in macrophage polarization in cancer. Front Immunol. 2022;13:1026954. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Hansen E, Wolff N, Knuechel R, Ruschoff J, Hofstaedter F, Taeger K. Tumor Cells in Blood Shed From the Surgical Field. Arch Surg. 1995;130:387–93. [DOI] [PubMed]
Mastronicola R, Berteau C, Tu Q, Cortese S, Guillet J, Phulpin B, et al. Detection of disseminated tumor cells in aspirative drains after neck dissection. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273:465–9. [DOI] [PubMed]
Jatana KR, Balasubramanian P, McMullen KP, Lang JC, Teknos TN, Chalmers JJ. Effect of surgical intervention on circulating tumor cells in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck using a negative enrichment technology. Head Neck. 2016;38:1799–803. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Stell PM, van den Broek P. Stomal recurrence after laryngectomy: aetiology and management. J Laryngol Otol. 1971;85:131–40. [DOI] [PubMed]
Mei J, Huang Z, Wu K, Zhao Y, Yang J, Liu Y. Risk Factors of Stomal Recurrence After Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2017;126:654–68. [DOI] [PubMed]
Cappell MS. Risk Factors and Risk Reduction of Malignant Seeding of the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Track from Pharyngoesophageal Malignancy: A Review of all 44 Known Reported Cases. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1307–11. [DOI] [PubMed]
Huang AT, Georgolios A, Espino S, Kaplan B, Neifeld J, Reiter ER. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy site metastasis from head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Case series and literature review. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;42:20. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Slaughter DP, Southwick HW, Smejkal W. Field cancerization in oral stratified squamous epithelium; clinical implications of multicentric origin. Cancer. 1953;6:963–8. [DOI] [PubMed]
Adjei Boakye E, Buchanan P, Hinyard L, Osazuwa-Peters N, Schootman M, Piccirillo JF. Incidence and Risk of Second Primary Malignant Neoplasm After a First Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. JAMA Otolaryngol–Head Neck Surg. 2018;144:727–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Braakhuis BJ, Tabor MP, Kummer JA, Leemans CR, Brakenhoff RH. A genetic explanation of Slaughter’s concept of field cancerization: evidence and clinical implications. Cancer Res. 2003;63:1727–30. [PubMed]
Tabor MP, Brakenhoff RH, Ruijter-Schippers HJ, Kummer JA, Leemans CR, Braakhuis BJ. Genetically Altered Fields as Origin of Locally Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:3607–13. [DOI] [PubMed]
Tabor MP, Brakenhoff RH, van Houten VM, Kummer JA, Snel MH, Snijders PJ, et al. Persistence of genetically altered fields in head and neck cancer patients: biological and clinical implications. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7:1523–32. [PubMed]
Savioli F, Edwards J, McMillan D, Stallard S, Doughty J, Romics L. The effect of postoperative complications on survival and recurrence after surgery for breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2020;155:103075. [DOI] [PubMed]
Schantz SP, Skolnik EM, O’Neill JV. Improved Survival Associated with Postoperative Wound Infection in Laryngeal Cancer: An Analysis of Its Therapeutic Implications. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1980;88:412–7. [DOI] [PubMed]
Jackson RM, Rice DH. Wound infections and recurrence in head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990;102:331–3. [DOI] [PubMed]
Grandis JR, Snyderman CH, Johnson JT, Yu VL, D’Amico F. Postoperative wound infection. A poor prognostic sign for patients with head and neck cancer. Cancer. 1992;70:2166–70. [DOI] [PubMed]
Rodrigo JP, Suárez C. Prognostic Significance of Postoperative Wound Infection on Head and Neck Cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;118:272–5. [DOI] [PubMed]
Penel N, Fournier C, Roussel-Delvallez M, Lefebvre D, Kara A, Mallet Y, et al. Prognostic significance of wound infections following major head and neck cancer surgery: an open non-comparative prospective study. Support Care Cancer. 2004;12:634–9. [DOI] [PubMed]
González-Márquez R, Rodrigo JP, Suárez Nieto C. Prognostic significance of postoperative wound infections after total laryngectomy. Head Neck. 2012;34:1023–7. [DOI] [PubMed]
Hirakawa H, Hasegawa Y, Hanai N, Ozawa T, Hyodo I, Suzuki M. Surgical site infection in clean-contaminated head and neck cancer surgery: risk factors and prognosis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270:1115–23. [DOI] [PubMed]
Mascarella MA, Azzi JL, da Silva SD, Mlynarek A, Forest VI, Hier M, et al. Postoperative infection predicts poor survival in locoregionally advanced oral cancer. Head Neck. 2019;41:3624–30. [DOI] [PubMed]
de Almeida JR, Yao CMKL, Ziai H, Staibano P, Huang SH, Hosni A, et al. Postoperative wound infections, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and cancer recurrence in patients with oral cavity cancer undergoing surgical resection. Oral Oncol. 2019;97:23–30. [DOI] [PubMed]
Davies JC, Hugh S, Rich JT, de Almeida JR, Gullane PJ, Orsini M, et al. Association of Pharyngocutaneous Fistula With Cancer Outcomes in Patients After Laryngectomy. JAMA Otolaryngol–Head Neck Surg. 2021;147:1027–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Hiraoka SI, Shimada Y, Kawasaki Y, Akutagawa M, Tanaka S. Preoperative nutritional evaluation, surgical site infection, and prognosis in patients with oral cancer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2022;134:168–75. [DOI] [PubMed]
Thiagarajan S, Kantamani T, Sathe P, Shetty R, Deshmukh A, Chaukar D, et al. Impact of surgical site infection on unplanned hospital readmissions, initiation of adjuvant treatment following surgery, and disease-free survival on patients with upper aerodigestive tract squamous cell carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2023;128:692–700. [DOI] [PubMed]
Yonaga H, Mukaigawa T, Yasunaga Y, Okada S, Goto S, Hiiragi Y, et al. Prognostic impact of surgical site infections following free-flap reconstruction for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Otolaryngol. 2026;146:580–7. [DOI] [PubMed]
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Head and Neck Cancers [Internet]. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; c2026 [2026 Mar 1]. Available from: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/HPA/DSI-HERC/MembersOnly/7.5f%20NCCN%201.2026%20head-and-neck.pdf
Graboyes EM, Garrett-Mayer E, Sharma AK, Lentsch EJ, Day TA. Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for time to initiation of postoperative radiation therapy for patients with head and neck cancer. Cancer. 2017;123:2651–60. [DOI] [PubMed]
Janz TA, Kim J, Hill EG, Sterba K, Warren G, Sharma AK, et al. Association of Care Processes With Timely, Equitable Postoperative Radiotherapy in Patients With Surgically Treated Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144:1105–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Heft Neal ME, Haring CT, Bellile E, Jaffe CC, Shuman AG, Chinn SB, et al. Phase II Clinical Trial of Intravenous Levothyroxine to Mitigate Pharyngocutaneous Fistula in Euthyroid Patients Undergoing Salvage Laryngectomy. Clin Cancer Res. 2024;30:2910–6. [DOI] [PubMed]
Smith BD, Osazuwa-Peters OL, Cannon TY, Reed WT, Puscas L, Osazuwa-Peters N. Nonsurgical Risk Factors Associated With Pharyngocutaneous Fistula in Patients Who Have Undergone Laryngectomy. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;147:966–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Liang JW, Li ZD, Li SC, Fang FQ, Zhao YJ, Li YG. Pharyngocutaneous fistula after total laryngectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015;42:353–9. [DOI] [PubMed]
Powell SF, Vu L, Spanos WC, Pyeon D. The Key Differences between Human Papillomavirus-Positive and -Negative Head and Neck Cancers: Biological and Clinical Implications. Cancers. 2021;13:5206. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Viitanen TP, Visuri MT, Sulo E, Saarikko AM, Hartiala P. Anti-inflammatory effects of flap and lymph node transfer. J Surg Res. 2015;199:718–25. [DOI] [PubMed]
Hanasono MM, Friel MT, Klem C, Hsu PW, Robb GL, Weber RS, et al. Impact of reconstructive microsurgery in patients with advanced oral cavity cancers. Head Neck. 2009;31:1289–96. [DOI] [PubMed]
Moreno MA, Wax MK, Gardner JR, Cannady SB, Graboyes EM, Bewley AF, et al. Reconstruction for Salvage Laryngectomy With Limited Pharyngectomy. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024;150:492–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Lassig AAD, Lindgren BR, Wilson AC, Joseph AM, Davison M, Yueh B. InCISE: Instrument for Comprehensive Incisional and Surgical Evaluation. Laryngoscope. 2023;133:2166–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Lazare S, Gu Z, Earland N, Harmon MA, Pacula M, Rivera M, et al. Postoperative Lymph Is a Proximal Source of ctDNA for Detection of Recurrence in HPV-Independent Head and Neck Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2026;32:135–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Larsen LR, Schuller DE. Wound amylase levels as an early indicator of orocutaneous fistulae. Laryngoscope. 1984;94:1302–6. [DOI] [PubMed]
Morton RP, Mehanna H, Hall FT, McIvor NP. Prediction of pharyngocutaneous fistulas after laryngectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;136:S46–9. [DOI] [PubMed]
Lassig AAD, Lindgren BR, Itabiyi R, Joseph AM, Gupta K. Excessive inflammation portends complications: Wound cytokines and head and neck surgery outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:E238–46. [DOI] [PubMed]
Candau-Alvarez A, Gil-Campos M, De la Torre-Aguilar MJ, Llorente-Cantarero F, Lopez-Miranda J, Perez-Navero JL. Early Modification in Drainage of Interleukin-1β and Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Best Predicts Surgical-Site Infection After Cervical Neck Dissection for Oral Cancer. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73:1189–98. [DOI] [PubMed]
Lassig AAD, Joseph AM, Lindgren BR, Yueh B. Association of Oral Cavity and Oropharyngeal Cancer Biomarkers in Surgical Drain Fluid With Patient Outcomes. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143:670–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Earland N, Semenkovich NP, Ramirez RJ, Gerndt SP, Harris PK, Gu Z, et al. Sensitive MRD Detection from Lymphatic Fluid after Surgery in HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2024;30:1409–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Gou L, Yang W, Qiao X, Ye L, Yan K, Li L, et al. Marginal or segmental mandibulectomy: treatment modality selection for oral cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47:1–10. [DOI] [PubMed]
Haingura BS, Rikhotso RE. Reasons for Removal of Mandibular Reconstruction Plates. J Craniofacial Surg. 2025;36:e1501–6. [DOI] [PubMed]
Bauer E, Mazul A, Zenga J, Graboyes EM, Jackson R, Puram SV, et al. Complications After Soft Tissue With Plate vs Bony Mandibular Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;164:501–11. [DOI] [PubMed]
Niroomand-Rad A, Razavi R, Thobejane S, Harter KW. Radiation dose perturbation at tissue-titanium dental interfaces in head and neck cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;34:475–80. [DOI] [PubMed]
Mian TA, Van Putten MC Jr, Kramer DC, Jacob RF, Boyer AL. Backscatter radiation at bone-titanium interface from high-energy X and gamma rays. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1987;13:1943–7. [DOI] [PubMed]
Fenske J, Neumann O, Nikolaidou E, Kreiker H, Hofmann E, Bauer J, et al. Radiation dose inaccuracies near patient-specific osteosynthesis plates: an ex vivo dosimetric study. Radiother Oncol. 2026;214:111244. [DOI] [PubMed]
Fischer H, Schmidt-Bleek O, Orassi V, Wulsten D, Schmidt-Bleek K, Heiland M, et al. Biomechanical Comparison of WE43-Based Magnesium vs. Titanium Miniplates in a Mandible Fracture Model in Sheep. Materials. 2022;16:102. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Zhang J, Tian W, Chen J, Yu J, Zhang J, Chen J. The application of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in cranioplasty. Brain Res Bull. 2019;153:143–9. [DOI] [PubMed]
Lommen J, Schorn L, Sproll C, Haussmann J, Kübler NR, Budach W, et al. Reduction of CT Artifacts Using Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), Polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), Polyphenylsulfone (PPSU), and Polyethylene (PE) Reconstruction Plates in Oral Oncology. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;80:1272–83. [DOI] [PubMed]
Laux CJ, Villefort C, Ehrbar S, Wilke L, Guckenberger M, Müller DA. Carbon Fiber/Polyether Ether Ketone (CF/PEEK) Implants Allow for More Effective Radiation in Long Bones. Materials. 2020;13:1754. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Feng D, Zhang Y, Guo H, Zheng C, Zhang Y, Zhang W, et al. 3D-printed PEEK versus conventional free fibula flap for jaw reconstruction: a comparative clinical study. Front Oncol. 2025;15:1656914. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Long J, Zhang J, Kang J, Fan Y, Zhang Z, Shi J, et al. Customed 3D-printed Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Implant for Secondary Salvage Reconstruction of Mandibular Defects: Case Report and Literature Review. J Craniofacial Surg. 2023;34:2460–3. [DOI] [PubMed]
Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J, Guigay J, Colevas AD, Licitra L, et al. Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1856–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Uppaluri R, Haddad RI, Tao Y, Le Tourneau C, Lee NY, Westra W, et al. Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2025;393:37–50. [DOI] [PubMed]
FDA approves neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab for resectable locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [Internet]. [cited 2026 Mar 1]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-neoadjuvant-and-adjuvant-pembrolizumab-resectable-locally-advanced-head-and-neck
Kuo PJ, Lin PC, Hsieh CH. Wound healing in cancer patients under immunotherapy. Int J Surg. 2025;111:7087–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Philips R, Alnemri A, Amin D, Patel J, Topf MC, Johnson JM, et al. Effect of preoperative programmed death-1 or programmed death ligand-1 immune check point inhibition on complications after surgery for primary head and neck cancer. Cancer. 2024;130:863–75. [DOI] [PubMed]
Chen H, Shi Y, Fang Q, Hu L. Immunomodulation in healing: neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy reduces major wound complications and accelerates recovery in oral cancer surgery. Front Immunol. 2026;17:1768004. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Mays AC, Yarlagadda B, Achim V, Jackson R, Pipkorn P, Huang AT, et al. Examining the relationship of immunotherapy and wound complications following flap reconstruction in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2021;43:1509–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Li H, Zandberg DP, Kulkarni A, Chiosea SI, Santos PM, Isett BR, et al. Distinct CD8+ T cell dynamics associate with response to neoadjuvant cancer immunotherapies. Cancer Cell. 2025;43:757–75.e8. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Saddawi-Konefka R, Schokrpur S, Gutkind JS. Let it be: Preserving tumor-draining lymph nodes in the era of immuno-oncology. Cancer Cell. 2024;42:930–3. [DOI] [PubMed]
Saddawi-Konefka R, O’Farrell A, Faraji F, Clubb L, Allevato MM, Jensen SM, et al. Lymphatic-preserving treatment sequencing with immune checkpoint inhibition unleashes cDC1-dependent antitumor immunity in HNSCC. Nat Commun. 2022;13:4298. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Singaravelu A, McCarrick C, Potter S, Cahill RA. Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Intraoperative Flap Perfusion Assessment With Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography in Breast and Head and Neck Reconstructions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Microsurgery. 2024;44:e31250. [DOI] [PubMed]
Hoesli R, Brennan JR, Rosko AJ, Birkeland AC, Malloy KM, Moyer JS, et al. Intraoperative Fluorescent Angiography Predicts Pharyngocutaneous Fistula After Salvage Laryngectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:1320–5. [DOI] [PubMed]
Okuyama K, Debnath KC, Islam S, Yanamoto S. From Wound Coverage to Functional Healing: A Narrative Review of Biomaterial Applications in Head and Neck Mucosal Defects. Head Neck. 2025;47:3201–8. [DOI] [PubMed]
Gui J, Zhu Y, Chen X, Gong T, Zhang Z, Yu R, et al. Systemic platelet inhibition with localized chemotherapy by an injectable ROS-scavenging gel against postsurgical breast cancer recurrence and metastasis. Acta Biomater. 2024;177:388–99. [DOI] [PubMed]
Wu Z, Wu Y, Alam J, Viet CT, Dharmaraj N, Molina A, et al. Hydrogels in head and neck cancer: Innovations and translational advances in research and therapy. Biomaterials. 2026;330:124049. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Vlad T, Mituletu M, Flangea C, Marina CD, Caraba MN, Balica NC, et al. Bioprinting in Tissue Repair and Its ENT Applications. Polymers (Basel). 2026;18:821. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Dohan Ehrenfest DM, Rasmusson L, Albrektsson T. Classification of platelet concentrates: from pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) to leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF). Trends Biotechnol. 2009;27:158–67. [DOI] [PubMed]
Yankov YG, Yotsova RV, Stoev LL, Dimanov SN. A Rare Case of External Ear Skin Plasty With Xenogenic Bovine Collagen Membrane and Platelet-rich Plasma. J of IMAB. 2025;31:6404–8. [DOI]
Eid AM, Ebada HA, El-Fattah AMA, Tawfik A. Platelet-rich fibrin: an autologous biomaterial for healing assistance of pharyngeal repair in total laryngectomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278:463–70. [DOI] [PubMed]
Kul S, Toros SZ, Becerik Ç, Şeneldir L, Aksaray S. The Effect of Using Perioperative Platelet-Rich Plasma on Wound Healing Rate and Prevention of Salivary Fistula Formation in Patients Undergoing Partial Parotidectomy. Clin Otolaryngol. 2024;50:352–7. [DOI] [PubMed]
Handoko RE, Fitri LE, Reksodiputro MH, Widasmara D. Enhancing wound healing in otorhinolaryngology with autologous platelet concentrates: a systematic review of clinical outcomes. J Laryngol Otol. 2026;140:346–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]
Cite this Article
Export Citation
Harris MK, Cai WL, Kim J, Helou V, Smith JD, Spector ME. Wound healing and recurrence in head and neck cancer: a narrative review. Explor Target Antitumor Ther. 2026;7:1002405. https://doi.org/10.37349/etat.2026.1002405
Article Metrics

View: 24

Download: 2

Times Cited: 0