| Literature DB >> 29868479 |
Petra Ambrosch1, Mireia Gonzalez-Donate1, Asita Fazel1, Claudia Schmalz2, Jürgen Hedderich3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transoral laser microsurgery (TLM) is an accepted and effective treatment strategy for supraglottic carcinomas. Early supraglottic carcinoma has excellent outcomes independently of the treatment approach. The role of TLM for the treatment of locally advanced tumors is debated. Particularly, the functional outcomes after TLM have to be proven by functional assessment of large cohorts of patients. This study analyzes the oncologic and functional outcomes after TLM for supraglottic carcinomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-one patients with pT1-pT4a supraglottic carcinomas treated between January 2002 and December 2012 were analyzed. Distribution of tumors (UICC 2010) was 11 patients with pT1, 31 patients with pT2, 36 patients with pT3, and 13 patients with pT4a tumors. Node status was positive in 40 (43.6%) patients; 61 (67.1%) patients had stage III or IVa disease. Local control and survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. For the assessment of functional outcomes, the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10), and the performance status scale for head and neck cancer [Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck (PSS-HN)] were used.Entities:
Keywords: functional outcomes; larynx preservation; oncologic outcomes; supraglottic cancer; transoral laser microsurgery
Year: 2018 PMID: 29868479 PMCID: PMC5954241 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Patient characteristics.
| Characteristic | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 69 | 75.8 |
| Female | 22 | 24.2 |
| pT1 | 11 | 12.0 |
| pT2 | 31 | 34.0 |
| pT3 | 36 | 39.5 |
| pT4a | 13 | 14.5 |
| N0/pN0 | 51 | 56.0 |
| pN1 | 9 | 10.0 |
| pN2a | 1 | 1.0 |
| pN2b | 15 | 16.5 |
| pN2c | 15 | 16.5 |
| pN3 | 0 | 0 |
| I | 8 | 8.8 |
| II | 22 | 24.2 |
| III | 26 | 28.6 |
| IVa | 35 | 38.5 |
| Never | 12 | 13.2 |
| Ever | 79 | 86.8 |
| Never | 19 | 20.8 |
| Regular | 61 | 67.0 |
| Ex-alcoholic | 12 | 13.2 |
| Negative (R0) | 82 | 90.1 |
| Microscopic positive (R1) | 1 | 1.1 |
| Uncertain | 8 | 8.8 |
| Macroscopic positive (R2) | 0 | 0 |
Treatment approach.
| UICC stage | Surgical treatment | Combined treatment | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | ||||
| I | 8 | 8.8 | 0 | 8 | |
| II | 19 | 20.9 | 3 | 3.3 | 22 |
| III | 19 | 20.9 | 7 | 7.7 | 26 |
| IVa | 15 | 16.4 | 20 | 22.0 | 35 |
| 61 | 67.0 | 30 | 33.0 | 91 | |
Analysis of local and locoregional recurrences.
| TNM | Time since surgery (months) | rTrN | Salvage treatment | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pT1pN0 | 16 | rT1 | TLM | Alive, NED |
| pT1pN0 | 87 | rT1 | TLM | Alive, NED |
| pT1pN0 | 63 | rT1 | TLM | Alive, NED |
| pT2 pN0 | 15 | rT2 | TLM | Alive, NED |
| pT2 pN0 | 11 | rT4 | TL | Alive, NED |
| pT3pN0 | 56 | rT2 | TLM + RT | Dead, tumor unrelated |
| pT3pN0 | 23 | rT4 | TL + RT | Alive, NED |
| pT3pN1 | 8 | rT4 | TL | Dead, tumor related |
| pT2pN0 | 20 | rT1rN1 | TLM + ND | Dead, tumor unrelated |
| pT3pN2a | 10 | rT4rN2c | RT | Dead, tumor related |
| pT3pN0 | 23 | rT1rN1 | TLM + ND | Alive, NED |
| pT3pN0 | 10 | rT4rN2c | Declined | Dead, tumor related |
| pT4apN0 | 24 | rT4rN2c | TL + RT | Dead, tumor related |
| pT4apN2c | 6 | rT2rN2c | Declined | Dead, tumor related |
Kaplan–Meier estimates of local control.
| Years | Local control rate (%) | 95% confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|
| pT1 and pT2 | 2 | 83 | 72; 96 |
| 3 | 83 | 72; 96 | |
| 5 | 76 | 63; 92 | |
| pT3 | 2 | 72 | 58; 90 |
| 3 | 72 | 58; 90 | |
| 5 | 68 | 54; 87 | |
| pT3 and pT4a | 2 | 75 | 63; 89 |
| 3 | 75 | 63; 89 | |
| 5 | 67 | 56; 85 |
Kaplan–Meier estimates of survival for stages I and II.
| Years | Survival rate (%) | 95% confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall survival | 2 | 90 | 80; 100 |
| 3 | 78 | 64; 96 | |
| 5 | 69 | 53; 90 | |
| Disease-free survival | 2 | 85 | 72; 100 |
| 3 | 85 | 72; 100 | |
| 5 | 79 | 65; 98 |
Kaplan–Meier estimates of survival for stages III and IVa.
| Years | Survival rate (%) | 95% confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall survival | 2 | 75 | 65; 87 |
| 3 | 68 | 57; 81 | |
| 5 | 58 | 47; 73 | |
| Disease-free survival | 2 | 71 | 59; 84 |
| 3 | 69 | 57; 82 | |
| 5 | 64 | 52; 78 |
Figure 1Distribution of the MDADI composite score in long-term survivors after TLM (n = 19) and after TLM + adjuvant RT (n = 10).
Figure 2Distribution of the VHI in long-term survivors after TLM (n = 18) and after TLM + adjuvant RT (n = 10).