BACKGROUND: Histopathologic grade of mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is an established predictor of prognosis and affects treatment protocol. Tumor behavior is more aggressive in high-grade than in low-grade MEC, leading to a more intensive treatment protocol. Outcomes for patients with intermediate-grade MEC are less clear; therefore, the optimal treatment protocol for this group is not well defined. The treatment protocol and survival outcomes of patients treated for MEC of the head and neck was investigated. METHODS: A retrospective clinical review and prospective review of histopathologic grading were undertaken using the most recently established grading system of 50 patients with MEC of the head and neck from 1983 through 2004. RESULTS: As histologic grade increased from low to intermediate to high, overall survival (P < .0001) and disease-free survival (P < .001) were significantly decreased. Overall and disease-free survival were significantly better for patients with intermediate-grade MEC than those with high-grade disease. Overall and disease-free survival were similar for patients with low-grade and intermediate-grade MEC. There was a low rate of disease recurrence in patients with intermediate-grade MEC, but this did not lead to death from disease. Although no patients with low-grade or intermediate-grade MEC died of disease, 52% of patients with high-grade MEC died of disease. Multivariate analysis revealed that histologic grade, age, and surgical margin status significantly predicted prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, under the current histopathologic classification system, the behavior of intermediate-grade MEC is comparable to that of low-grade MEC and different from high-grade MEC, allowing for the establishment of an evidence-based treatment protocol. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Histopathologic grade of mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is an established predictor of prognosis and affects treatment protocol. Tumor behavior is more aggressive in high-grade than in low-grade MEC, leading to a more intensive treatment protocol. Outcomes for patients with intermediate-grade MEC are less clear; therefore, the optimal treatment protocol for this group is not well defined. The treatment protocol and survival outcomes of patients treated for MEC of the head and neck was investigated. METHODS: A retrospective clinical review and prospective review of histopathologic grading were undertaken using the most recently established grading system of 50 patients with MEC of the head and neck from 1983 through 2004. RESULTS: As histologic grade increased from low to intermediate to high, overall survival (P < .0001) and disease-free survival (P < .001) were significantly decreased. Overall and disease-free survival were significantly better for patients with intermediate-grade MEC than those with high-grade disease. Overall and disease-free survival were similar for patients with low-grade and intermediate-grade MEC. There was a low rate of disease recurrence in patients with intermediate-grade MEC, but this did not lead to death from disease. Although no patients with low-grade or intermediate-grade MEC died of disease, 52% of patients with high-grade MEC died of disease. Multivariate analysis revealed that histologic grade, age, and surgical margin status significantly predicted prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, under the current histopathologic classification system, the behavior of intermediate-grade MEC is comparable to that of low-grade MEC and different from high-grade MEC, allowing for the establishment of an evidence-based treatment protocol. (c) 2008 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Giovanni Tonon; Sanjay Modi; Lizi Wu; Akihito Kubo; Amy B Coxon; Takefumi Komiya; Kevin O'Neil; Kristen Stover; Adel El-Naggar; James D Griffin; Ilan R Kirsch; Frederic J Kaye Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2003-01-21 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Trevor M Feinstein; Stephen Y Lai; Diana Lenzner; William Gooding; Robert L Ferris; Jennifer R Grandis; Eugene N Myers; Jonas T Johnson; Dwight E Heron; Athanassios Argiris Journal: Head Neck Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Nicole A Cipriani; Jonathan J Lusardi; James McElherne; Alexander T Pearson; Andrea D Olivas; Carrie Fitzpatrick; Mark W Lingen; Elizabeth A Blair Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Zachary C Taylor; Erin A Kaya; Jeffrey D Bunn; Zachary D Guss; Brian J Mitchell; Robert K Fairbanks; Wayne T Lamoreaux; Aaron E Wagner; Ben J Peressini; Christopher M Lee Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-12-24
Authors: Andrés Coca-Pelaz; Juan P Rodrigo; Asterios Triantafyllou; Jennifer L Hunt; Alessandra Rinaldo; Primož Strojan; Missak Haigentz; William M Mendenhall; Robert P Takes; Vincent Vander Poorten; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2014-04-26 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Daniel N Johnson; Mine Onenerk; Jeffrey F Krane; Esther Diana Rossi; Zubair Baloch; Güliz Barkan; Massimo Bongiovanni; Fabiano Callegari; Sule Canberk; Glen Dixon; Andrew Field; Christopher C Griffith; Nirag Jhala; Sara Jiang; Daniel Kurtycz; Lester Layfield; Oscar Lin; Zahra Maleki; Miguel Perez-Machado; Marc Pusztaszeri; Philippe Vielh; He Wang; Matthew A Zarka; William C Faquin Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Serena A Byrd; Matthew E Spector; Thomas E Carey; Carol R Bradford; Jonathan B McHugh Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 3.497