Allen S Ho1,2, Sungjin Kim1,3, Mourad Tighiouart1,3, Cynthia Gudino1, Alain Mita1,4, Kevin S Scher1,4, Anna Laury1,5, Ravi Prasad1,6, Stephen L Shiao1,7, Nabilah Ali1,2, Chrysanta Patio1,2, Jon Mallen-St Clair1,2, Jennifer E Van Eyk1,8, Zachary S Zumsteg1,7. 1. Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 3. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Research Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 4. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 5. Department of Pathology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 6. Department of Radiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 8. Advanced Clinical Biosystems Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
Importance: Nodal staging for laryngohypopharyngeal cancers is based primarily on size and laterality, with less value placed on absolute number of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs). We are aware of no studies to date that have specifically addressed the prognostic effect of quantitative nodal burden in larynx or hypopharynx malignancies. Objective: To assess the independent impact of quantitative metastatic LN burden on mortality risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: Univariate and multivariable models were constructed to evaluate the association between patients' number of metastatic LNs and their survival, adjusting for factors such as nodal size, laterality, extranodal extension, margin status, and adjuvant treatment. Participants were patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx or hypopharynx undergoing upfront surgical resection for curative intent at a US hospital between 2004 and 2013, as identified in the National Cancer Database. A neck dissection of a minimum of 10 LNs was required. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival. Results: Overall, 8351 cases were included (mean [SD] age, 61 [10.1] years; 6499 men [77.8%]; 4710 patients with metastatic LNs and 3641 with no metastatic LNs). Mortality risk escalated continuously without plateau as number of metastatic nodes increased, with the hazard per node (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.23; P < .001) most pronounced up to 5 positive LNs. Extranodal extension was also associated with increased mortality (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.59; P < .001). Increasing number of nodes examined was associated with improved survival, albeit to a lesser degree (per 10 LNs: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98; P < .001) and without a detectable change point. Other nodal factors, including nodal size, contralateral LN involvement (TNM stage N2c), and lower LN involvement (levels 4-5), were not associated with mortality in multivariable models when accounting for number of positive LNs. A novel, parsimonious nodal staging system derived by recursive partitioning analysis exhibited greater concordance with survival than the TNM staging system outlined in the American Joint Committee on Cancer's AJCC Staging Manual, 8th edition. Conclusions and Relevance: The number of metastatic nodes is a predominant independent factor associated with mortality in hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers. Moreover, standard nodal staging factors like LN size and contralaterality have no independent prognostic value when accounting for positive LN number. Deeper integration of quantitative metastatic nodal disease may simplify staging and better triage the need for adjuvant therapy.
Importance: Nodal staging for laryngohypopharyngeal cancers is based primarily on size and laterality, with less value placed on absolute number of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs). We are aware of no studies to date that have specifically addressed the prognostic effect of quantitative nodal burden in larynx or hypopharynx malignancies. Objective: To assess the independent impact of quantitative metastatic LN burden on mortality risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: Univariate and multivariable models were constructed to evaluate the association between patients' number of metastatic LNs and their survival, adjusting for factors such as nodal size, laterality, extranodal extension, margin status, and adjuvant treatment. Participants were patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx or hypopharynx undergoing upfront surgical resection for curative intent at a US hospital between 2004 and 2013, as identified in the National Cancer Database. A neck dissection of a minimum of 10 LNs was required. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival. Results: Overall, 8351 cases were included (mean [SD] age, 61 [10.1] years; 6499 men [77.8%]; 4710 patients with metastatic LNs and 3641 with no metastatic LNs). Mortality risk escalated continuously without plateau as number of metastatic nodes increased, with the hazard per node (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.23; P < .001) most pronounced up to 5 positive LNs. Extranodal extension was also associated with increased mortality (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.59; P < .001). Increasing number of nodes examined was associated with improved survival, albeit to a lesser degree (per 10 LNs: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98; P < .001) and without a detectable change point. Other nodal factors, including nodal size, contralateral LN involvement (TNM stage N2c), and lower LN involvement (levels 4-5), were not associated with mortality in multivariable models when accounting for number of positive LNs. A novel, parsimonious nodal staging system derived by recursive partitioning analysis exhibited greater concordance with survival than the TNM staging system outlined in the American Joint Committee on Cancer's AJCC Staging Manual, 8th edition. Conclusions and Relevance: The number of metastatic nodes is a predominant independent factor associated with mortality in hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancers. Moreover, standard nodal staging factors like LN size and contralaterality have no independent prognostic value when accounting for positive LN number. Deeper integration of quantitative metastatic nodal disease may simplify staging and better triage the need for adjuvant therapy.
Authors: Arlene A Forastiere; Helmuth Goepfert; Moshe Maor; Thomas F Pajak; Randal Weber; William Morrison; Bonnie Glisson; Andy Trotti; John A Ridge; Clifford Chao; Glen Peters; Ding-Jen Lee; Andrea Leaf; John Ensley; Jay Cooper Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Guillaume Janoray; Yoann Pointreau; Pascal Garaud; Sophie Chapet; Marc Alfonsi; Christian Sire; Eric Jadaud; Gilles Calais Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J L Lefebvre; D Chevalier; B Luboinski; A Kirkpatrick; L Collette; T Sahmoud Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1996-07-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Brian O'Sullivan; Shao Hui Huang; Jie Su; Adam S Garden; Erich M Sturgis; Kristina Dahlstrom; Nancy Lee; Nadeem Riaz; Xin Pei; Shlomo A Koyfman; David Adelstein; Brian B Burkey; Jeppe Friborg; Claus A Kristensen; Anita B Gothelf; Frank Hoebers; Bernd Kremer; Ernst-Jan Speel; Daniel W Bowles; David Raben; Sana D Karam; Eugene Yu; Wei Xu Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: David Adelstein; Maura L Gillison; David G Pfister; Sharon Spencer; Douglas Adkins; David M Brizel; Barbara Burtness; Paul M Busse; Jimmy J Caudell; Anthony J Cmelak; A Dimitrios Colevas; David W Eisele; Moon Fenton; Robert L Foote; Jill Gilbert; Robert I Haddad; Wesley L Hicks; Ying J Hitchcock; Antonio Jimeno; Debra Leizman; William M Lydiatt; Ellie Maghami; Loren K Mell; Bharat B Mittal; Harlan A Pinto; John A Ridge; James Rocco; Cristina P Rodriguez; Jatin P Shah; Randal S Weber; Matthew Witek; Frank Worden; Sue S Yom; Weining Zhen; Jennifer L Burns; Susan D Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: William M Lydiatt; Snehal G Patel; Brian O'Sullivan; Margaret S Brandwein; John A Ridge; Jocelyn C Migliacci; Ashley M Loomis; Jatin P Shah Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: J-L Lefebvre; G Andry; D Chevalier; B Luboinski; L Collette; L Traissac; D de Raucourt; J A Langendijk Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Yoann Pointreau; Pascal Garaud; Sophie Chapet; Christian Sire; Claude Tuchais; Jacques Tortochaux; Sandrine Faivre; Stephane Guerrif; Marc Alfonsi; Gilles Calais Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Allen S Ho; Sungjin Kim; Mourad Tighiouart; Cynthia Gudino; Alain Mita; Kevin S Scher; Anna Laury; Ravi Prasad; Stephen L Shiao; Jennifer E Van Eyk; Zachary S Zumsteg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Z S Zumsteg; M Luu; S Kim; M Tighiouart; A Mita; K S Scher; D J Lu; S L Shiao; J Mallen-St Clair; A S Ho Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Won Ki Cho; Jong-Lyel Roh; Kyung-Ja Cho; Seung-Ho Choi; Soon Yuhl Nam; Sang Yoon Kim Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Katri Aro; Allen S Ho; Michael Luu; Sungjin Kim; Mourad Tighiouart; Jon Mallen-St Clair; Emi J Yoshida; Stephen L Shiao; Ilmo Leivo; Zachary S Zumsteg Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Cristina Valero; Daniella K Zanoni; Anjali Pillai; Bin Xu; Nora Katabi; Ronald A Ghossein; Ian Ganly; Luc G T Morris; Jatin P Shah; Richard J Wong; Snehal G Patel Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.454