| Literature DB >> 32318349 |
Wenli Yang1, Minglei Sun1, Qiaoyan Jie1, Haixia Zhou1, Peng Zhang1, Juanfang Zhu1.
Abstract
Objective: Accurate predictors for occult metastasis in cT1-2N0 tongue squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) remains scarce, the main goal in current study was to evaluate whether there is significant association between lingual lymph node (LLN) metastasis and occult lymph node metastasis as well as whether there is prognostic value of LLN metastasis in early stage tongue SCC.Entities:
Keywords: early stage tongue squamous cell carcinoma; elective neck dissection; lingual lymph node; occult metastasis; squamous cell carcinoma
Year: 2020 PMID: 32318349 PMCID: PMC7154091 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00471
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Lingual lymph node (white row).
Association between clinical pathologic variables and lingual lymph node metastasis.
| Age | |||
| <40 | 7 | 23 | |
| ≥40 | 36 | 251 | 0.101 |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 33 | 194 | |
| Female | 10 | 80 | 0.422 |
| Smoking | |||
| Yes | 23 | 166 | |
| No | 20 | 108 | 0.378 |
| Drinking | |||
| Yes | 15 | 115 | |
| No | 28 | 159 | 0.380 |
| Tumor stage | |||
| T1 | 12 | 131 | |
| T2 | 31 | 143 | 0.015 |
| DOI | |||
| <5 mm | 15 | 132 | |
| ≥5 mm | 28 | 142 | 0.104 |
| PI | |||
| Yes | 8 | 38 | |
| No | 35 | 236 | 0.412 |
| LVI | |||
| Yes | 5 | 28 | |
| No | 38 | 246 | 0.779 |
| Occult metastasis | |||
| Negative | 23 | 206 | |
| Positive | 20 | 68 | 0.003 |
| Tumor grade | |||
| Well | 13 | 109 | |
| Moderate | 20 | 123 | |
| Poor | 10 | 42 | 0.313 |
depth of invasion;
perineural invasion;
lymphovascular invasion.
Association between clinical pathologic variables and occult neck lymph node metastasis.
| Age | |||||
| <40 | 7 | 23 | |||
| ≥40 | 81 | 206 | 0.569 | ||
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 63 | 164 | |||
| Female | 25 | 65 | 0.996 | ||
| Smoking | |||||
| Yes | 53 | 136 | |||
| No | 35 | 93 | 0.107 | ||
| Drinking | |||||
| Yes | 35 | 95 | |||
| No | 53 | 134 | 0.781 | ||
| Tumor stage | |||||
| T1 | 25 | 118 | |||
| T2 | 63 | 111 | <0.001 | 0.005 | 2.445[1.247–6.332] |
| DOI | |||||
| <5 mm | 32 | 115 | |||
| ≥5 mm | 56 | 114 | 0.027 | 0.033 | 2.118[1.684–5.226] |
| PI | |||||
| Yes | 15 | 31 | |||
| No | 73 | 198 | 0.427 | ||
| LVI | |||||
| Yes | 13 | 20 | |||
| No | 75 | 209 | 0.115 | ||
| LLN | |||||
| No | 56 | 172 | |||
| Negative | 12 | 34 | |||
| Positive | 20 | 23 | 0.012 | 0.041 | 1.984[1.247–3.222] |
| Tumor grade | |||||
| Well | 26 | 96 | |||
| Moderate | 40 | 103 | |||
| Poor | 22 | 30 | 0.018 | 0.008 | 3.221[1.647–7.669] |
depth of invasion;
perineural invasion;
lymphovascular invasion;
lingual lymph node.
Cervical metastasis pattern according to the status of lingual lymph node (LLN) status.
| I | 20 | 12 | 56 |
| II | 2 | 2 | 6 |
| III | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 2Comparison of locoregional control survival in patients with different lingual lymph node status (p = 0.024).
Prognostic factors for the locoregional control in patients with cT1-2N0 tongue squamous cell carcinoma.
| Age (<40 vs. ≥40) | 0.547 | ||
| Sex | 0.336 | ||
| Smoking | 0.147 | ||
| Drinking | 0.225 | ||
| Tumor stage (T1 vs. T2) | 0.005 | 0.174 | 3.664[0.786–12.004] |
| Neck node stage (N0 vs. N+) | 0.001 | <0.001 | 4.222[1.782–9.664] |
| DOI* (<5 vs. ≥5 mm) | 0.026 | 0.013 | 2.643[1.844–6.449] |
| Perineural invasion | 0.014 | 0.008 | 2.847[1.471–7.552] |
| Lymphovascular invasion | 0.008 | 0.085 | 3.412[0.925–9.227] |
| Pathologic tumor grade | 0.111 | ||
| Well | |||
| Moderate | |||
| Poor | |||
| LLN status | 0.024 | ||
| No | |||
| Negative | 0.845 | 1.235[0.158–2.111] | |
| Positive | 0.015 | 1.999[1.325–4.668] | |
| Adjuvant treatment | 0.521 | ||
Figure 3Comparison of disease specific survival in patients with different lingual lymph node status (p < 0.001).
Prognostic factors for the disease specific survival in patients with cT1-2N0 tongue squamous cell carcinoma.
| Age (<40 vs. ≥40) | 0.254 | ||
| Sex | 0.631 | ||
| Smoking | 0.215 | ||
| Drinking | 0.334 | ||
| Tumor stage (T1 vs. T2) | 0.088 | ||
| Neck node stage (N0 vs. N+) | 0.002 | <0.001 | 2.222[1.258–5.331] |
| DOI* (<5 vs. ≥5 mm) | 0.015 | 0.003 | 3.524[1.631–8.552] |
| Perineural invasion | 0.263 | ||
| Lymphovascular invasion | 0.014 | 0.005 | 2.338[1.726–5.434] |
| Pathologic tumor grade | 0.021 | ||
| Well | |||
| Moderate | 0.015 | 2.114[1.235–4.002] | |
| Poor | <0.001 | 4.669[1.978–9.224] | |
| LLN status | <0.001 | ||
| No | |||
| Negative | 0.098 | 1.735[0.896–3.425] | |
| Positive | <0.001 | 1.845[1.137–3.987] | |
| Adjuvant treatment | 0.521 | ||