| Literature DB >> 35814859 |
Roman O Kowalchuk1, Kathryn M Van Abel2, Adam B Sauer2, Linda X Yin2, Joaquin J Garcia3, William S Harmsen4, Eric J Moore2, Daniel L Price2, Ashish V Chintakuntlawar5, Katharine R Price5, Scott C Lester1, Michelle Neben Wittich1, Samir H Patel6, Robert L Foote1, Daniel M Ma1, Alex A Nagelschneider7, David M Routman1.
Abstract
Purpose: Human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV[+]OPSCC) requires further study to optimize the existing clinical staging system and guide treatment selection. We hypothesize that incorporation of the number of radiographically positive lymph nodes will further stratify patients with clinical N1 (cN1) HPV(+)OPSCC. Methods and Materials: A post hoc analysis from 2 prospective clinical trials at a high-volume referral center was conducted. Patients underwent primary tumor resection and lymphadenectomy, followed by either standard-of-care radiation therapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions) with or without cisplatin (40 mg/m2 weekly) or de-escalated radiation therapy (30 Gy in 20 twice-daily fractions) with concomitant 15 mg/m2 docetaxel once weekly. Imaging studies were independently reviewed by a blinded neuroradiologist classifying radiographic extranodal extension (rENE) and the number and maximal size of involved lymph nodes. Patients without pathologic data available for assessment were excluded.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35814859 PMCID: PMC9260100 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.100926
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol ISSN: 2452-1094
Characteristics of patients by clinical and pathologic staging categories
| TNM stage | cT category | pT category | cN category | pN category | cTNM stage | pTNM stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 32 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 98 | 107 | 216 | 219 | 207 | 198 |
| 2 | 114 | 117 | 31 | 38 | 38 | 53 |
| 3 | 8 | 25 | 6 | N/A | 15 | 9 |
| 4 | 8 | 11 | 0 | N/A | 0 | 0 |
Abbreviations: c = clinical; N/A = not applicable; p = pathologic; TNM = tumor, node, metastases.
Fig. 1Stratification of clinical N1 patients by radiographically identified involved lymph nodes (radLN) demonstrated a statistically significant association with progression-free survival (P = .02).
Fig. 2Radiographically identified extranodal extension (rENE) was predictive of decreased progression-free survival (d, P = .001).
Fig. 3Among clinical N1 patients, having >2 radiographically identified involved lymph nodes (radLNs) was predictive of decreased progression-free survival (A, P = .006) and decreased overall survival (B, P = .03).
Predictors of progression-free survival for the entire cohort and for only clinical N1 patients*
| Comparison | Entire cohort, HR (95% CI) | cN1 only, HR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| pN2 vs pN0-1 | 6.33 (3.33-12.03), | 5.95 (2.43-14.55), |
| cN2 vs cN0-1 | 3.17 (1.62-6.20), | |
| rENE vs no rENE | 2.81 (1.45-5.43), | 1.83 (0.83-4.01), |
| pENE vs no pENE | 3.64 (1.60-8.31), | 2.41 (1.001-5.78), |
| cT3-4 vs cT0-2 | 1.97 (0.77-5.09), | 1.29 (0.30-5.58), |
| >2 radLNs vs ≤2 radLNs | 3.29 (1.70-6.38), | 2.93 (1.32-6.48), |
| Maximum size LN, per 1 cm | 1.14 (0.86-1.52), | 1.09 (0.74-1.61), |
| Maximum LN size >3 cm | 0.95 (0.49-1.83), | 0.91 (0.40-2.06), |
Abbreviations: c = clinical; ENE = extranodal extension; HR = hazard ratio; LN = lymph node; p = pathologic; r = radiographically predicted; radLN = radiographically identified involved lymph node.
Results were based on univariate Cox hazards analyses. The hazard ratio is presented with the 95% confidence interval for each factor analyzed.
Not conducted because this was a cN1 subset.
Fig. 4The proposed subcategorization of the clinical N1 category is portrayed.