| Literature DB >> 33967485 |
B Chaitra1, Manasa Burela1, Laxmi Kasula1, Renuka Venkata Inuganti1, Tejeswini Vaddatti1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is a significant public health problem in India, accounting to 30% of all cancers with a worrying rise in incidence and related mortality. Invasive tumor front (ITF) of OSCC has been an area of histopathologic research interest, where parameters like tumor budding (TB), mode of invasion (MOI) and lymphocytic host response (LHR) are being evaluated extensively.Entities:
Keywords: Invasive tumor front; lymphocytic host response; mode of invasion; oral squamous cell carcinoma; tumor budding
Year: 2021 PMID: 33967485 PMCID: PMC8083440 DOI: 10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_178_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Pathol ISSN: 0973-029X
Figure 1Tumor Budding, (a) Low intensity (H and E, ×100); (b) Intermediate intensity (H and E, ×400); (c) High intensity (H and E, ×400)
Figure 2Mode of invasion, (a) Grade 1 (H and E, ×100); (b) Grade 2 (H and E, ×100); (c) Grade 3 (H and E, ×100); (d) Grade 4c (H and E, ×100); (e) Grade 4d (H and E, ×100)
Figure 3Lymphocytic host response: (a) Low intensity (H and E, ×100); (b) Intermediate intensity (H and E, ×400); (c) High intensity (H and E, ×400)
Comparison of different clinicopathological parameters, mode of invasion and lymphocytic host response with tumor budding
| Parameter | Tumor budding (total number of cases 69) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low ( | Intermediate ( | High ( | ||
| Age (years) | ||||
| 20- 29 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0.031* |
| 30- 39 | 6 | 2 | 8 | |
| 40- 49 | 12 | 3 | 4 | |
| 50- 59 | 11 | 1 | 2 | |
| 60- 69 | 7 | 1 | 1 | |
| 70- 79 | 5 | 0 | 2 | |
| >80 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 11 | 1 | 1 | 0.145 |
| Male | 31 | 9 | 16 | |
| Grade | ||||
| 1 | 38 | 8 | 11 | 0.024* |
| 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
| DOI | ||||
| <4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0.335 |
| >4 | 37 | 9 | 17 | |
| Pt | ||||
| 1 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0.155 |
| 2 | 22 | 4 | 4 | |
| 3 | 10 | 3 | 9 | |
| 4a | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| LNI | ||||
| No | 31 | 5 | 6 | 0.017* |
| Yes | 11 | 5 | 11 | |
| WPOI | ||||
| 0- 4 | 39 | 7 | 2 | 0.000* |
| 5 | 3 | 3 | 15 | |
| LVI | ||||
| No | 23 | 0 | 1 | 0.000* |
| Yes | 19 | 10 | 16 | |
| PNI | ||||
| No | 31 | 4 | 2 | 0.000* |
| Yes | 11 | 6 | 15 | |
| MOI | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.000* |
| 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 30 | 1 | 0 | |
| 4a | 7 | 7 | 3 | |
| 4c | 1 | 2 | 14 | |
| LHR | ||||
| Mild | 4 | 1 | 8 | 0.009* |
| Moderate | 30 | 7 | 9 | |
| Severe | 8 | 2 | 0 | |
*P<0.05 - Significant correlation. DOI: Depth of invasion, pT: Tumor size, LNI: Lymphnodal involvement, WPOI: Worst pattern of invasion, LVI: Lymphovascular invasion, PNI: Perineural invasion, MOI: Mode of invasion, LHR: Lymphocytic host response
Comparison of different clinicopathological parameters and lymphocytic host response with mode of invasion.
| Parameter | Mode of Invasion (total number of cases 69) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 ( | 2 ( | 3 ( | 4c ( | 4d ( | ||
| Age (years) | ||||||
| 20- 29 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0.817 |
| 30- 39 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 7 | |
| 40- 49 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 4 | 4 | |
| 50- 59 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 3 | |
| 60- 69 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | |
| 70- 79 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2 | |
| >80 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Sex | ||||||
| Female | 0 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0.389 |
| Male | 2 | 1 | 24 | 13 | 16 | |
| Grade | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 29 | 12 | 12 | 0.051 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 2 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
| DOI | ||||||
| <4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0.175 |
| >4 | 1 | 2 | 28 | 15 | 17 | |
| pT | ||||||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0.07 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 6 | 5 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 7 | |
| 4a | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | |
| LNI | ||||||
| No | 2 | 2 | 24 | 6 | 8 | 0.016* |
| Yes | 0 | 0 | 7 | 11 | 9 | |
| WPOI | ||||||
| 0- 4 | 2 | 2 | 30 | 14 | 0 | 0.000* |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 17 | |
| LVI | ||||||
| No | 2 | 2 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 0.000* |
| Yes | 0 | 0 | 13 | 16 | 16 | |
| PNI | ||||||
| No | 2 | 2 | 27 | 7 | 2 | 0.000* |
| Yes | 0 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 15 | |
| LHR | ||||||
| Mild | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 0.057 |
| Moderate | 1 | 1 | 24 | 10 | 10 | |
| Severe | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 0 | |
* P<0.05 - Significant correlation. DOI: Depth of invasion, pT: Tumor size, LNI: Lymphnodal involvement, WPOI: Worst pattern of invasion, LVI: Lymphovascular invasion, PNI: Perineural invasion, LHR: Lymphocytic host response
Comparison of different clinicopathological parameters with lymphocytic host response
| Parameter | Lymphocytic host response (total number of cases 69) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low ( | Intermediate ( | High ( | ||
| Age (years) | ||||
| 20- 29 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0.16 |
| 30- 39 | 3 | 12 | 1 | |
| 40- 49 | 4 | 11 | 4 | |
| 50- 59 | 0 | 13 | 1 | |
| 60- 69 | 3 | 5 | 1 | |
| 70- 79 | 2 | 4 | 1 | |
| >80 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 0 | 10 | 3 | 0.13 |
| Male | 13 | 36 | 7 | |
| Grade | ||||
| 1 | 9 | 40 | 8 | 0.23 |
| 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | |
| 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| DOI | ||||
| <4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0.387 |
| >4 | 12 | 43 | 8 | |
| Pt | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 0.032* |
| 2 | 1 | 25 | 4 | |
| 3 | 7 | 12 | 3 | |
| 4a | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| LNI | ||||
| No | 5 | 31 | 6 | 0.16 |
| Yes | 8 | 15 | 4 | |
| WPOI | ||||
| 0- 4 | 3 | 35 | 10 | 0.000* |
| 5 | 10 | 11 | 0 | |
| LVI | ||||
| No | 2 | 17 | 5 | 0.19 |
| Yes | 11 | 29 | 5 | |
| PNI | ||||
| No | 3 | 26 | 8 | 0.02* |
| Yes | 10 | 20 | 2 | |
*P<0.05 - Significant correlation. DOI: Depth of invasion, pT: Tumor size, LNI: Lymphnodal involvement, WPOI: Worst pattern of invasion, LVI: Lymphovascular invasion, PNI: Perineural invasion
Comparison of inter-relationship between clinicopathological features, tumor budding, mode of invasion and lymphocytic host response with outcome in the present study and Chatterjee et al.[1] study
| Parameter | Present study ( | Chatterjee | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alive ( | Death ( | |||
| Sex | ||||
| Female | 5 | 2 | 0.51 | 0.34 |
| Male | 15 | 11 | ||
| Grade | ||||
| 1 | 14 | 12 | 0.051 | 0.73 |
| 2 | 6 | 0 | ||
| 3 | 0 | 1 | ||
| DOI | ||||
| <4 | 9 | 0 | 0.005* | 0.33 |
| >4 | 11 | 13 | ||
| Pt | ||||
| 1 | 5 | 0 | 0.049* | 0.96 |
| 2 | 10 | 4 | ||
| 3 | 4 | 6 | ||
| 4a | 1 | 3 | ||
| LNI | ||||
| No | 12 | 5 | 0.22 | - |
| Yes | 8 | 8 | ||
| WPOI | ||||
| 0- 4 | 17 | 6 | 0.01* | 0.47 |
| 5 | 3 | 7 | ||
| LVI | ||||
| No | 8 | 3 | 0.31 | 0.30 |
| Yes | 12 | 10 | ||
| PNI | ||||
| No | 15 | 4 | 0.01* | 0.24 |
| Yes | 5 | 9 | ||
| TB | ||||
| Low | 14 | 9 | 0.73 | 0.44 |
| Intermediate | 3 | 1 | ||
| High | 3 | 3 | ||
| MOI | ||||
| 2 | 1 | 0 | 0.10 | - |
| 3 | 11 | 4 | ||
| 4a | 6 | 3 | ||
| 4c | 2 | 6 | ||
| LHR | ||||
| Mild | 1 | 6 | 0.007* | 0.62 |
| Moderate | 14 | 7 | ||
| Severe | 5 | 0 | ||
*P<0.05 - Significant correlation. DOI: Depth of invasion, pT: Tumor size, LNI: Lymphnodal involvement, WPOI: Worst pattern of invasion, LVI: Lymphovascular invasion, PNI: Perineural invasion, TB: Tumor budding, MOI: Mode of invasion, LHR: Lymphocytic host response