He-Chen Wang1, Yan Zheng2, Pai Pang3, Rui-Wu Li4, Zhong-Zheng Qi5, Chang-Fu Sun6. 1. Master Student, Department of Oromaxillofacial-Head and Neck Surgery and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 2. Master Student, Department of Periodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 3. Doctoral Student, Department of Oromaxillofacial-Head and Neck Surgery and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 4. Professor, Department of Oromaxillofacial-Head and Neck Surgery and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 5. Attending Physician, Department of Oromaxillofacial-Head and Neck Surgery and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 6. Professor, Department Head, and Vice Dean, Department of Oromaxillofacial-Head and Neck Surgery and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. Electronic address: changfusun@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To date, consensus has not been reached on which treatment modality, that is, in-continuity neck dissection or discontinuous neck dissection, is more appropriate for managing patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the tongue and floor of the mouth. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare discontinuous neck dissection with in-continuity neck dissection as a treatment modality for SCC of the tongue and floor of the mouth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for articles that compared discontinuous neck dissection with in-continuity neck dissection in SCC of the tongue and floor of the mouth until March 1, 2017. The predictor variable was whether discontinuous neck dissection or in-continuity neck dissection was performed in each group. The primary outcome variable was the incidence of locoregional recurrence. Two authors individually extracted the data and assessed the study quality. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata (version 13.0; StataCorp, College Station, TX). RESULTS: We included 8 studies with 796 patients in our meta-analysis. The results showed that in-continuity neck dissection had a statistically significantly lower incidence of locoregional recurrence than discontinuous neck dissection (random-effects model: relative risk, 0.459; 95% confidence interval, 0.240 to 0.877; P = .019). Because significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 74.5%, P < .001) was found in the heterogeneity evaluation, a separate analysis was performed. However, the results still showed that in-continuity neck dissection had a statistically significantly lower rate of locoregional recurrence than discontinuous neck dissection in patients with T2 and T3 SCC of the tongue and floor of the mouth (fixed-effects model: relative risk, 0.281; 95% confidence interval, 0.183 to 0.433; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with discontinuous neck dissection, in-continuity neck dissection can significantly reduce the rate of locoregional recurrence in patients with SCC of the tongue and floor of the mouth.
PURPOSE: To date, consensus has not been reached on which treatment modality, that is, in-continuity neck dissection or discontinuous neck dissection, is more appropriate for managing patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the tongue and floor of the mouth. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to compare discontinuous neck dissection with in-continuity neck dissection as a treatment modality for SCC of the tongue and floor of the mouth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were searched for articles that compared discontinuous neck dissection with in-continuity neck dissection in SCC of the tongue and floor of the mouth until March 1, 2017. The predictor variable was whether discontinuous neck dissection or in-continuity neck dissection was performed in each group. The primary outcome variable was the incidence of locoregional recurrence. Two authors individually extracted the data and assessed the study quality. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata (version 13.0; StataCorp, College Station, TX). RESULTS: We included 8 studies with 796 patients in our meta-analysis. The results showed that in-continuity neck dissection had a statistically significantly lower incidence of locoregional recurrence than discontinuous neck dissection (random-effects model: relative risk, 0.459; 95% confidence interval, 0.240 to 0.877; P = .019). Because significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 74.5%, P < .001) was found in the heterogeneity evaluation, a separate analysis was performed. However, the results still showed that in-continuity neck dissection had a statistically significantly lower rate of locoregional recurrence than discontinuous neck dissection in patients with T2 and T3 SCC of the tongue and floor of the mouth (fixed-effects model: relative risk, 0.281; 95% confidence interval, 0.183 to 0.433; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with discontinuous neck dissection, in-continuity neck dissection can significantly reduce the rate of locoregional recurrence in patients with SCC of the tongue and floor of the mouth.