Oral and oropharyngeal cancers together are the sixth most common malignancy in the world, with an increasing incidence of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). The recurrence rate of OSCC is reported to be approximately 10-26%. About two-thirds of all recurrent tumours occur within two to three years of initial treatment. Recurrent disease or subsequent metastasis within the first 18 months after primary surgical resection worsens the five-year survival rate of patients by about 20.5 - 27.6%. Whilst close follow-up is suggested, recognising recurrent disease can be challenging, partly due to anatomical distortion, brosis, bleeding, oedema, in ammation and possible infection. There is also no international consensus or guidelines or either clinical or radiological follow-up with detailed post treatment protocols. This is an interesting paper from Germany; the authors attempt to establish an algorithm for follow-up based on a review of the literature, existing guidelines and their institutional protocols. They recommend a follow-up with clinical and radiological components. A CT is recommended initially at six weeks postoperatively and then once every 12 weeks for the first six months alternating with clinical review only, every third month in year two, twice a year in year three and four and finally once in year five. This is a total of 10 CT scans over the five years. If there is an any ambiguity a PET is ordered. Ultrasound has limitations of imaging deeper structures and while MRI as a modality is discussed, it is not part of the regular protocol. This is an interesting paper and reveals practice of medicine elsewhere. The follow-up recommendations of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for head and neck cancer are physical examination and history every one to three months for the first year, every two to six months for the second year, every four to eight months in years three to five and imaging in the first six months post treatment. The modality of imaging is not specified. These are similar to NICE guidelines. It is an interesting viewpoint and a well written paper.