Introduction of a New Pathology Workup Protocol for Glottic Cancer Treated With Transoral Laser Microsurgery (TLM): Prospective Analysis of Oncological Outcomes and Matched Case-Control Study.
glottic cancer
laryngeal cancer
margins
oncological outcomes
transoral laser microsurgery
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
24
03
2021
accepted:
15
04
2021
entrez:
21
5
2021
pubmed:
22
5
2021
medline:
22
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The value of margin status after TLM for glottic cancer is debatable, due to difficulties in specimen orientation and margin analysis. To reduce these difficulties, we recently introduced a standardized protocol of oriented fixation of TLM specimens. This proved feasible and resulted in high margin evaluability rates and a decreased rate of false positive deep margins, when compared to a historical TLM cohort. For the patients whose specimens were processed according to this protocol, we prospectively analyzed oncological outcomes, identified prognostic factors and assessed the influence of the protocol introduction on outcomes compared with a historical TLM cohort. Ninety-six patients with glottic malignancies treated with TLM were included. Resection specimens were processed according to the new protocol. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were used to determine oncological outcomes. To assess the effect of the protocol introduction on outcomes, a matched-case-control analysis was performed, using a historical TLM-cohort as controls. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze prognostic effects of patient and treatment characteristics, including the pathology protocol introduction, on overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), disease-free survival (DFS) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Two-year outcomes were favorable: 88.5% OS, 97.0% DSS, and 87.6% LRFS. At multivariable analysis, the presence of multiple positive superficial margins was a negative prognosticator for OS (HR 4.102) and increasing cT classification proved a negative prognosticator for DFS (HR 2.828) and LRFS (HR 2.676). Matched case-control analysis did not reveal a significant difference in oncological outcomes between cohorts. Deep margin status had a strong differential effect for DFS (p-value for interaction = 0.0205) and for LRFS (p-value for interaction = 0.0176) between cohorts, indicating a prognostic effect of deep margin status on both outcomes in the current cohort, but not in the historical cohort. The introduction of a new standardized technique of oriented fixation of TLM specimens did not affect oncological outcomes when compared to a historical TLM cohort, but assigned a significant prognostic effect to deep margin status for DFS and LRFS, facilitating the decision making process with regards to planning of second-look procedures, administration of adjuvant radiotherapy or determination of follow-up intensity.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
The value of margin status after TLM for glottic cancer is debatable, due to difficulties in specimen orientation and margin analysis. To reduce these difficulties, we recently introduced a standardized protocol of oriented fixation of TLM specimens. This proved feasible and resulted in high margin evaluability rates and a decreased rate of false positive deep margins, when compared to a historical TLM cohort. For the patients whose specimens were processed according to this protocol, we prospectively analyzed oncological outcomes, identified prognostic factors and assessed the influence of the protocol introduction on outcomes compared with a historical TLM cohort.
METHODS
METHODS
Ninety-six patients with glottic malignancies treated with TLM were included. Resection specimens were processed according to the new protocol. Descriptive statistics and survival analyses were used to determine oncological outcomes. To assess the effect of the protocol introduction on outcomes, a matched-case-control analysis was performed, using a historical TLM-cohort as controls. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze prognostic effects of patient and treatment characteristics, including the pathology protocol introduction, on overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), disease-free survival (DFS) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Two-year outcomes were favorable: 88.5% OS, 97.0% DSS, and 87.6% LRFS. At multivariable analysis, the presence of multiple positive superficial margins was a negative prognosticator for OS (HR 4.102) and increasing cT classification proved a negative prognosticator for DFS (HR 2.828) and LRFS (HR 2.676). Matched case-control analysis did not reveal a significant difference in oncological outcomes between cohorts. Deep margin status had a strong differential effect for DFS (p-value for interaction = 0.0205) and for LRFS (p-value for interaction = 0.0176) between cohorts, indicating a prognostic effect of deep margin status on both outcomes in the current cohort, but not in the historical cohort.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The introduction of a new standardized technique of oriented fixation of TLM specimens did not affect oncological outcomes when compared to a historical TLM cohort, but assigned a significant prognostic effect to deep margin status for DFS and LRFS, facilitating the decision making process with regards to planning of second-look procedures, administration of adjuvant radiotherapy or determination of follow-up intensity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34017690
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.685255
pmc: PMC8130557
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
685255Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Meulemans, Narimani, Hauben, Nuyts, Laenen, Delaere and Vander Poorten.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Am J Otolaryngol. 2021 Mar-Apr;42(2):102787
pubmed: 33316724
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010 May;267(5):743-50
pubmed: 19898826
Front Surg. 2020 Aug 28;7:56
pubmed: 33005622
Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep. 2017;5(1):83-91
pubmed: 28367362
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2007 May;264(5):499-504
pubmed: 17377801
Head Neck. 2009 May;31(5):583-92
pubmed: 19132720
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2011;73(6):336-42
pubmed: 22005723
Front Oncol. 2017 Oct 16;7:245
pubmed: 29085805
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021 Apr 1;29(2):79-85
pubmed: 33664193
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Apr;15(2):82-8
pubmed: 17413407
Front Oncol. 2018 May 28;8:186
pubmed: 29892574
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021 Jan 5;:194599820983727
pubmed: 33400625
Laryngoscope. 2009 Sep;119(9):1704-8
pubmed: 19572396
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 May;270(5):1569-80
pubmed: 22972497
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2000;257(4):227-31
pubmed: 10867840
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Apr;26(2):78-83
pubmed: 29373328
Front Oncol. 2019 May 22;9:408
pubmed: 31192120
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Mar;272(3):695-704
pubmed: 24682610
Head Neck. 2012 Jan;34(1):73-7
pubmed: 21374754
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Oct;274(10):3679-3686
pubmed: 28631160
Head Neck. 2011 Nov;33(11):1638-48
pubmed: 21990228
Head Neck. 2017 Jan;39(1):71-81
pubmed: 27453475
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 May;46(3):399-424
pubmed: 21818162
Head Neck. 2010 Aug;32(8):977-83
pubmed: 19902535
Front Oncol. 2018 May 22;8:175
pubmed: 29872643
Oral Oncol. 2019 Oct;97:105-111
pubmed: 31473467
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Jan;273(1):169-75
pubmed: 26294221
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 May;275(5):1199-1210
pubmed: 29442166
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 May;278(5):1515-1521
pubmed: 33515084