| Literature DB >> 32449025 |
Andreas Knopf1,2, Sven Jacob3, Henning Bier3, Elias Q Scherer3,4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Contralateral elective neck dissection (cEND) in oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OC/OPC) is still a matter of debate. The current study analyzed the outcome in OC/OPC patients with/without cEND.Entities:
Keywords: Elective neck dissection; Oral cavity; Oropharynx; SCC
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32449025 PMCID: PMC7546986 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06043-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol ISSN: 0937-4477 Impact factor: 2.503
Clinico-pathological characteristics and therapeutic strategy in oral cancer
| Ipsi-lat. ND | Bilat. ND | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 59 | 83 | ||
| Age (years) | 0.91 | ||
| Median | 56.0 | 57.00 | |
| Mean ± SD | 57 ± 13 | 57 ± 11 | |
| Sex, | 0.64 | ||
| Male | 41 (70) | 61 (74) | |
| Female | 18 (30) | 22 (26) | |
| Location, | |||
| Cheek | 6 (10) | 3 (4) | 0.34 |
| Buccoalveolar sulcus | 1 (2) | 4 (5) | |
| Mouth floor | 12 (20) | 47 (57) | |
| Tongue | 40 (68) | 29 (35) | |
| Laterality, | < 0.0001 | ||
| Lateral | 47 (80) | 40 (48) | |
| Mid-line reaching | 11 (18) | 23 (28) | |
| Mid-line crossing | 1 (2) | 20 (24) | |
| pT-status, | 0.07 | ||
| T1 | 35 (59) | 38 (46) | |
| T2 | 18 (31) | 32 (39) | |
| T3 | 3 (5) | 7 (8) | |
| T4 | 3 (5) | 6 (7) | |
| pN-status, | 0.38 | ||
| None | 34 (58) | 51 (61) | |
| Ipsi-lateral | 25 (42) | 32 (39) | |
| Bi-lateral | 0 | 0 | |
| Grading, | 0.18 | ||
| G1 | 6 (10) | 12 (15) | |
| G2 | 34 (58) | 53 (64) | |
| G3 | 18 (31) | 18 (22) | |
| G4 | 1 (2) | 0 | |
| R-status, | 0.60 | ||
| R0 | 56 (95) | 81 (98) | |
| R1 | 3 (5) | 1 (1) | |
| R2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Rx | 0 | 1 (1) | |
| ECE, | 0.29 | ||
| Positive | 1 (2) | 4 (5) | |
| Primary tumor resection, | < 0.0001 | ||
| Transoral | 53 (90) | 49 (59) | |
| Transmandibular | 6 (10) | 34 (41) | |
| Adjuvant therapy, | 0.02 | ||
| None | 29 (50) | 26 (31) | |
| C/RT | 30 (51) | 57 (69) |
Disease related data of the analyzed study cohort. The clinical indication contralateral END was done due to laterality and T-status
ECE extra-capsular extension
Fig. 1Oncological outcome of oral and oropharyngeal carcinoma. In OC there were no differences in the OS (a), RFS (of any case, b), and RFS of contralateral lymph node involvement (c). In contrast, in OC there was a tendency towards a better OS of patients who underwent ipsi-lateral neck dissection (d). Significant better RFS (of any case, e) was demonstrated for patients who were treated with ipsi-lateral neck dissection when compared with patients who underwent bi-lateral neck dissection, while no differences could be observed in the RFS of contra-lateral lymph node disease (f)
Clinico-pathological characteristics and therapeutic strategy in oropharyngeal cancer
| Ipsi-lat. ND | Bilat. ND | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 165 | 164 | ||
| Age (years) | 0.33 | ||
| Median | 59.00 | 59.00 | |
| Mean ± SD | 60 ± 10 | 59 ± 9 | |
| Sex, | 0.73 | ||
| Male | 131 (79) | 128 (78) | |
| Female | 34 (21) | 36 (22) | |
| Location, | 0.03 | ||
| Tonsil | 109 (66) | 86 (52) | |
| Soft palate | 14 (9) | 12 (7) | |
| Uvula | 2 (1) | 20 (12) | |
| Tongue base | 24 (15) | 33 (20) | |
| Lat. pharyngeal wall | 8 (5) | 2 (1) | |
| Dorsal pharyngeal wall | 1 (1) | 4 (2) | |
| Vallecula | 7 (4) | 7 (4) | |
| Laterality, | < 0.0001 | ||
| Lateral | 135 (82) | 95 (58) | |
| Mid line reaching | 19 (12) | 31 (19) | |
| Mid line crossing | 11 (7) | 38 (23) | |
| pT-status, | 0.004 | ||
| T1 | 73 (44) | 51 (31) | |
| T2 | 71 (43) | 79 (48) | |
| T3 | 15 (9) | 22 (13) | |
| T4 | 6 (4) | 12 (7) | |
| pN-status, | 0.09 | ||
| None | 43 (26) | 44 (27) | |
| Ipsi-lateral | 122 (74) | 119 (73) | |
| Bi-lateral | 0 | 1 | |
| Grading, | 0.77 | ||
| G1 | 4 (2) | 4 (2) | |
| G2 | 68 (41) | 64 (39) | |
| G3 | 92 (56) | 96 (59) | |
| G4 | 1 (1) | 0 | |
| R-status, | 0.54 | ||
| R0 | 143 (87) | 146 (89) | |
| R1 | 19 (12) | 15 (9) | |
| R2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Rx | 3 (2) | 3 (2) | |
| ECE, | 0.56 | ||
| Positive | 23 (14) | 26 (16) | |
| 165 | 164 | ||
| Primary tumor resection, | 0.001 | ||
| Transoral | 110 (67) | 77 (47) | |
| Transmandibular | 33 (20) | 55 (34) | |
| Lat. pharyngotomy | 22 (13) | 28 (17) | |
| Med. pharyngotomy | 0 | 4 (2) | |
| Adjuvant therapy, | 0.56 | ||
| None | 30 (18) | 29 (18) | |
| C/RT | 135 (82) | 135 (82) |
Disease related data of the analyzed study cohort. The clinical indication contralateral END was done due to laterality and T-status
ECE extra-capsular extension
Differential localization of tumor recurrence in oropharyngeal carcinoma
| Ipislat. ND | Bilat. ND | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 165 | 164 | ||
| rT + /rN + /rM + | 27 (16) | 43 (26) | 0.033 |
| rT + | 15 (9) | 19 (12) | |
| rN + | 11 (7) | 10 (6) | |
| rM + | 11 (7) | 19 (12) |
Tumor recurrence in OPC who underwent bi-lateral neck dissection referred to a significant higher recurrence rate at primary tumor site (rT +) and increased distant metastatic outgrowth
Preoperative and postoperative assessment of the N-status
| Pre-operative | Post-operative | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| N-status | |||
| None | 157 (33) | 172 (37) | 0.01 |
| Ipsi-lateral | 314 (67) | 298 (63) | |
| Bi-lateral | 0 | 1 | |
All patients underwent CT/MRI scan and neck ultrasound of neck lymph nodes. Lymph node positivity was diagnosed due to pathological finding in any technique. There was a slight but significant over-staging of pre-operative imaging techniques. Occult contra-lateral lymph node metastasis was diagnosed in one patient representing 0.3% of the overall cohort and 0.4% of patients who underwent contra-lateral END