| Literature DB >> 28651556 |
Yorihisa Imanishi1,2, Hiroyuki Ozawa3, Koji Sakamoto4, Ryoichi Fujii5, Seiji Shigetomi6, Noboru Habu7, Kuninori Otsuka8, Yoichiro Sato9, Yoshihiro Watanabe3, Mariko Sekimizu3, Fumihiro Ito3, Toshiki Tomita3, Kaoru Ogawa3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transoral videolaryngoscopic surgery (TOVS) was developed as a new distinct surgical procedure for hypopharyngeal cancer (HPC) and supraglottic cancer (SGC) staged at up to T3. However, long-term treatment outcomes of TOVS remain to be validated.Entities:
Keywords: Hypopharyngeal cancer; Long-term treatment outcomes; Organ-function preservation; Prognostic factor; Supraglottic cancer; Survival; Transoral videolaryngoscopic surgery (TOVS)
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28651556 PMCID: PMC5485567 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3396-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Pre-therapeutic evaluation for TOVS. a A transnasal endoscopic view of the larynx and hypopharynx with a tumor on the right pyriform sinus. b A view in the same case as a under Valsalva maneuver, by which an expanded hypopharyngeal lumen can be observed down to the esophageal entrance. c A transnasal endoscopic view of a superficial tumor on the posterior wall of the hypopharynx. d A view in the same case as c using narrow band imaging, by which loss of typical intra-epithelial papillary capillary loop (IPCL) can be visualized as a brownish area. e A normal CT image of the case with an exophytic tumor on the left side of the hypopharyngeal wall. f A CT image of the same case as e under Valsalva maneuver, by which a tumor can be delineated more clearly in an expanded hypopharyngeal lumen
Fig. 2Configurations of TOVS. a Curved rigid pharyngolaryngeal blade. b Distending laryngoscope. c Distending diverticuloscope combined with a rigid endoscope. d FK-WO retractor system and its set of various blades. e Schematic appearance of the TOVS setting. f General scene of the TOVS setting in an operation room. A surgeon at the patient’s head performs surgery by direct bimanual handling of the straight-form surgical instruments and devices while viewing the monitor
Fig. 3Electrocautery instruments employed in TOVS. a Fine needle electrode with a 0.45-mm tip diameter. b Fine needle electrode with a 0.15-mm tip diameter. c Fine needle electrode with a 0.8-mm tip-shaft diameter. d Slim-line hand switch system. e Electrosurgical generator VIO300D. f Super long bipolar forceps 30 cm in length. g BiClamp LAP forceps Maryland type. h LigaSure Dolphin Tip
Fig. 4A case in which TOVS was performed for a tumor on the posterior wall. a CT image under Valsalva maneuver showing a T2 tumor on the posterior wall of the hypopharynx. b Transnasal endoscopic view of the tumor under Valsalva maneuver. c Endoscopic view of the tumor just before resection. d Endoscopic view of the wound just after resection. e Section of the tumor specimen stained with hematoxylin and eosin. f Macroscopic view of the tumor specimen resected. g Transnasal endoscopic view of the wound just after thorough hemostasis. Inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle was widely exposed
Fig. 5A case in which TOVS was performed for a tumor on the pyriform sinus. a CT image under Valsalva maneuver showing a T1 tumor on the right pyriform sinus of the hypopharynx. b Transnasal endoscopic view of the tumor under Valsalva maneuver. c Endoscopic view of the tumor just before resection. d Endoscopic view of the wound just after resection. Thyroid cartilage was partially exposed (arrow heads). e Section of the tumor specimen stained with hematoxylin and eosin. f Macroscopic view of the tumor specimen resected. g Transnasal endoscopic view of the hypopharynx 3 months after resection
Patient characteristics (n = 72)
| Characteristics | No. | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, y | |||
| Median (range) | 68 (46-88) | ||
| Mean ± SD | 66 ± 9 | ||
| Sex | |||
| Men | 67 | 93.1 | |
| Women | 5 | 6.9 | |
| Tumor site | |||
| Hypopharynx | 58 | 80.6 | |
| Supraglottis | 14 | 19.4 | |
| T stage | |||
| Tis | 9 | 12.5 | |
| T1 | 23 | 31.9 | |
| T2 | 33 | 45.8 | |
| T3 | 7 | 9.7 | |
| N stage | |||
| N0 | 37 | 51.4 | |
| N1 | 11 | 15.3 | |
| N2a | 1 | 1.4 | |
| N2b | 18 | 25.0 | |
| N2c | 4 | 5.6 | |
| N3 | 1 | 1.4 | |
| Stage | |||
| 0 | 9 | 12.5 | |
| I | 14 | 19.4 | |
| II | 13 | 18.1 | |
| III | 12 | 16.7 | |
| IVA | 23 | 31.9 | |
| IVB | 1 | 1.4 | |
| Multiple cancer | |||
| No | 18 | 25.0 | |
| Yes | 54 | 75.0 | |
| Previous RT on the neck | |||
| No | 60 | 83.3 | |
| Yes | 12 | 16.7 | |
SD Standard deviation, RT Radiotherapy
Surgical results and additional treatments (n = 72)
| Outcomes | No. | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary resection | |||
| En bloc | 66 | 91.7 | |
| Blockwise | 6 | 8.3 | |
| Neck dissection | |||
| No | 36 | 50.0 | |
| Unilateral | 32 | 44.4 | |
| Bilateral | 4 | 5.6 | |
| Additional RT | |||
| No | 56 | 77.8 | |
| Adjuvant | 12 | 16.7 | |
| Secondary | 4 | 5.6 | |
Complication and dysfunction (n = 72)
| Category | No. | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complication | |||
| Respiration-related | |||
| Temporary tracheostomy | 2 | 2.8 | |
| Prolonged mechanical ventilation | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Surgical site-related | |||
| Pharyngeal fistula | 2 | 2.8 | |
| Subcutaneous emphysema | 4 | 5.6 | |
| Dysfunction | |||
| Swallowing-related | |||
| Nasogastric tube placement | 16 | 22.2 | |
| Preventive balloon dilation | 3 | 4.2 | |
| Gastrostomy tube placement | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Aspiration pneumonia | 2 | 2.8 | |
| Persistent dysphasia | 3 | 4.2 | |
| Phonation-related | |||
| Permanent vocal dysfunction | 0 | 0.0 | |
Follow-up information (n = 72)
| Median follow-up period | Months (range) | ||
| of all patients | 45 (7-105) | ||
| of survivors ( | 52 (24-105) | ||
| Last status | No. | % | |
| NED | 54 | 75.0 | |
| AWD | 2 | 2.8 | |
| DOD | 8 | 11.1 | |
| DOC | 8 | 11.1 | |
NED No evidence of the disease, AWD Alive with the disease, DOD Died of the disease, DOC Died of other causes
Fig. 6Kaplan-Meier survival curves. a Cause-specific survival (CSS, red) and overall survival (OS, blue) of all patients (n = 72). The 5-year CSS and OS rates were 87.3 and 77.9%, respectively. b Larynx-preserved CSS (LP-CSS, green) and loco-regional controlled CSS (LRC-CSS, orange) of all patients. The 5-year LP-CSS and LRC-CSS rates were 86.0 and 88.0%, respectively. c CSS according to N stage (N0-1 [n = 48] vs N2-3 [n = 24]). The 5-year CSS rates were 96.4% for N0-1 (pink) and 69.2% for N2-3 (light blue) (generalized Wilcoxon test, P = 0.0003). d OS according to N stage. The 5-year OS rates were 87.3% for N0-1 (pink) and 59.9% for N2-3 (light blue) (generalized Wilcoxon test, P = 0.005)
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses for cause-specific survival and overall survival (n = 72)
| Variables | Cause-specific survival | Overall survival | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||||||
| HR | (95% CI) |
| HR | (95% CI) |
| HR | (95% CI) |
| HR | (95% CI) |
| |||
| Age, y | ||||||||||||||
| <70 | 45 | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | |||||
| ≧70 | 27 | 0.93 | (0.22-3.89) | 0.920 | 1.15 | (0.24-5.42) | 0.858 | 0.94 | (0.34-2.60) | 0.913 | 1.00 | (0.34-2.89) | 0.994 | |
| Sex | ||||||||||||||
| Men | 67 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | |||||||
| Women | 5 | not calculablea | − | not calculablea | − | 0.61 | (0.08-4.75) | 0.636 | 1.27 | (0.13-12.38) | 0.835 | |||
| Tumor site | ||||||||||||||
| HPC | 58 | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | |||||
| SGC | 14 | 0.57 | (0.07-4.68) | 0.605 | 0.38 | (0.04-3.43) | 0.386 | 0.60 | (0.14-2.64) | 0.498 | 0.54 | (0.11-2.69) | 0.450 | |
| T stage | ||||||||||||||
| Tis + T1 | 32 | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | |||||
| T2-3 | 40 | 2.69 | (0.54-13.34) | 0.227 | 0.68 | (0.09-5.24) | 0.714 | 1.58 | (0.57-4.35) | 0.380 | 1.27 | (0.29-5.54) | 0.749 | |
| N stage | ||||||||||||||
| N0-1 | 48 | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | |||||
| N2-3 | 24 | 15.45 | (1.90-125.69) | 0.010* | 25.51 | (2.29-284.17) | 0.008* | 2.94 | (1.09-7.90) | 0.032* | 4.90 | (1.26-19.08) | 0.022* | |
| Multiple cancer | ||||||||||||||
| No | 18 | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | |||||
| Yes | 54 | 1.08 | (0.22-5.36) | 0.923 | 2.63 | (0.45-15.20) | 0.281 | 1.21 | (0.39-3.82) | 0.742 | 1.74 | (0.47-6.41) | 0.405 | |
| Previous RT | ||||||||||||||
| No | 60 | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | 1.00 | reference | 1.00 | reference | ||||||
| Yes | 12 | 0.68 | (0.08-5.52) | 0.717 | not calculableb | − | 1.09 | (0.31-3.83) | 0.894 | 2.23 | (0.34-14.86) | 0.406 | ||
HPC hypopharyngeal cancer, SGC supraglottic cancer, RT Radiotherapy, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval
* Statistically significant (p < 0.05)
aHR was not calculable because no woman died of the disease
bHR was not calculable because of strong confounding with N stage